IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 229 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.114/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD . .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- K.PUSHPA, D/O. LATE APPAYA NAYAK, KODANTHOOR HOUSE, MAIRE VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADVS. MR.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER MR.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- DIVAKARA, S/O. ANANTHA NAYAK, AJERU HOUSE, PUNACHA, BANTWAL, VITTAL, KARNATAKA. R1 BY ADVS.MR.T.B.SHAJIMON, SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.229 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the defeated wife against the husband when her claim for maintenance had been turned down. Here is an unfortunate case where the family relationship of two couples had been lost. The revision petitioner's brother had married the respondent's sister and respondent in turn had married the revision petitioner. It appears that the revision petitioner is aged in between 40- 45 years. The matrimonial relationship between the brother of the revision petitioner and sister of the respondent had ended in divorce. According to the revision petitioner, the cause of quarrel is that when the sister-in-law had gone for Dungapoojra, respondent wanted his wife to come back. There was some resistance by brother-in-law which resulted in a quarrel as a result of which the brother-in-law had sent his wife along with her brother and the revision petitioner stayed there. On the contra the revision petitioner would contend that she had been treated with cruelty and that had resulted in separate living. The learned : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.229 OF 2009 Family Court Judge held that there is no proof regarding the cruelty or reason to live separately and therefore declined maintenance to the wife. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband would very strongly contend before me that it is a well considered judgment which cannot be interfered with. In matrimonial matters the approach of the court should be more realistic, practical and pragmatic and no technicality shall not defeat the ends of justice. Admittedly a situation had arisen in this case where the matrimonial relationship of the sister of the respondent herein with the brother of the revision petitioner had ended in divorce. When it is so one can just imagine what will be the reception the revision petitioner would get if she goes back to the matrimonial home. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would argue before me that his client had asserted that he has no objection in the wife going back to the matrimonial home. The quarrel has started immediately after the marriage and till the date of giving evidence before the court, the husband : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.229 OF 2009 has not moved his little finger in the form of sending a notice asking the wife to come back or to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights. Admittedly the husband has not even sent a money order to the wife for her maintenance. So the attitude of the husband towards the wife is not proper. So, I am prepared to accept the version of the revision petitioner and find that she is entitled to live separately for valid reasons. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum. Admittedly the husband is a disabled man. Suggestions are put to the effect that whether he is having 5 acres of land, but his answer is that he is depending on his brother. Anyhow the family court itself has observed that he is not totally incapable of doing any work. It has also come out in evidence that he is having a mobile phone with him. It is true that he cannot do any hard manual labour and therefore it may not be correct to ask him to pay a large sum of maintenance. But considering the fact that the wife has also to live, I feel in the fitness of things an amount of Rs.500/=can be ordered as maintenance amount to be paid : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.229 OF 2009 by the husband to the wife. 5. In the result the revision petition is allowed and the order of the family court is set aside and the revision petitioner is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= from the respondent herein, that is from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.229 OF 2009