IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 387 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.155/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................. REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- MUHMMEDALI, 44 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, KORAMBAYIL (H, PAVANNA POOVATHIKKAL P.O., OORNGATTIRI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (AREACODE POLICE STATION LIMIT). BY ADV. MR.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. A. RASIYA, 38 YEARS, D/O IBRAHAM, AMBAZHATHINJAL (H), EDAVANNA P.O., MANJERI VIA, MALAPPURAM DIST, (EDVANNA POLICE STATION LIMIT). 2. SHAMEM, 21 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI AMBAZHATHINJAL (H), EDAVANNA P.O., MANJERI VIA, MALAPPURAM DIST. (EDAVANNA POLICE STATION LIMIT). BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 387 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.10383/2009 IN RPFC NO.387/2009 DISMISSED 17/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 387 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.155/09. The wife and son of the revision petitioner moved applications for maintenance. The son was aged 21 years and it was contended that he is a mentally retarded and therefore he is entitled to claim maintenance. The Family Court found that there is no materials to prove mental retardation and it is seen from the evidence that he is married and is having a child. Therefore the Family Court declined to give maintenance to the son. Of course this is not a matter of challenge. 2. Now the true question is regarding the wife's right to maintenance. After 23 years of matrimonial relationship now the couple feel that they should live separately. It is really unfortunate. The couple have got two mentally retarded children according to them. Whatever it may be whether there is sufficient cause for separate living is the question to be first R.P.(F.C.) NO. 387 OF 2009 -:2:- considered. The wife would depose before Court that on account of the mental retardation of the child the conduct of the husband greatly changed and it resulted in unhappy matrimonial life and those circumstances led her to leave the husband's house. The husband would say that he is willing to take back the wife but I do not find any attempt has been made by anybody for the same except a mere statement in the box his intention to take the wife back. Therefore I feel that reasons exist for separate living. 3. Now going to the quantum. Both sides had spoken too much about the other side. But no materials are produced to show their respective avocation or income. The husband would contend that the father of the wife is a rich man. He is having 1000 acres of land but no document is produced to prove the same. Similarly the wife would contend the husband is also a very prosperous man but he would contend that he does not have any property but he is helping his father in cultivating the lands which is taken on lease besides taking sand from the river. According to him he does not have any R.P.(F.C.) NO. 387 OF 2009 -:3:- steady income at all. But he has candidly admitted before the court that he is a strong able bodied man without any ailment. He had also stated before court that by his own endeavour he had purchased motorcycles for his two sons. This shows the capacity of the man to earn. The wife would depose that she is having driving licence but no property. So a balance has to be struck in between these two contentions and I feel the only methodology is to fix a reasonable maintenance and I feel a sum of Rs.2,500/- will be sufficient under the circumstances. 4. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,500/- and that too payable from the date of filing of the petition. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-