IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 123 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2006 IN MC.291/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- VEERANKUTTY,S/O.VARIYAM PARAMBIL MOIDEENKUTTY,VARIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KALPAKANCHERRY AMSOM,THOZHUVANNUR DESOM,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- PADATHU UMMUSALMA,D/O.HAMSA,PADATHU HOUSE,MOORKKANADU AMSOM,DESOM,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.A.C.SANKARA VARMA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3122/07 IN RP(FC) NO.123/2007 DISMISSED 12/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 123 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.291/06. The Court below found that the wife has reasonable cause to live separately and awarded a maintenance of Rs.1,750/-. Challenging the same the husband has come up in revision. So far as living separately is concerned the causes alleged against the wife itself is sufficient to show that no wife can live with such a man. Therefore her separate residence cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the said finding. 2. So far as the quantum is concerned the husband was in gulf country for 20 years. He had constructed a building in 1995 and he is living there and his brothers are employed in gulf country and they are looking after the mother. The husband himself had admitted that the wife has no job and they are all living in a reasonably good standard. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 123 OF 2007 -:2:- It is also admitted that he used to give Rs.5,000/- to the wife when he was in the gulf country. Now this man has married another young lady and is happily living with her. Now the contention that he is only a coolie getting Rs.150/- does not appear to be probable and believable. Even if it is accepted, coupled with the factum of his earnings for two decades in the gulf country and having constructed a new building etc. it has to be stated that he is a man with sufficient means who can afford to maintain his wife reasonably well. The Family Court has only awarded an amount of Ra.1,750/- to be paid by such a husband to the wife which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-