IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 362 of 2009()
1. RAJU T.K., S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJIMOL C.D., W/O.RAJU T.K.,
... Respondent
2. NANDAGOPAN, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR),
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.SUNU P.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 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, Ernakulam in M.C.99/07. The wife and minor child
aged 6 years had claimed maintenance against respondent
therein and the Family Court awarded a maintenance of
Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.900/- to the child payable from
29.3.07. It is challenging the same the husband has come up
in revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel. The revision
memorandum would reveal that the challenge is regarding (1)
the reason to live separately and (2) regarding the quantum.
The unfortunate couple got married in the year 1999 and when
the ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life became very
serious the wife left the matrimonial home and had claimed
maintenance. The wife would contend that the husband is a
drunkard and he comes fully drunk and assaults her habitually.
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009
-:2:-
It made her life miserable. On one such occasion she went
away and subsequent to the intervention of mediators she
came back and started living in a shed along with her husband
which is adjacent to the house of the husband. Within four
months again the difference of opinion widened and according
to the wife she was mercilessly beaten and send out of the
house in 2002.
3. On the other hand the husband would contend that
he has got his parents and the wife does not want to live in a
remote area wherein his house is situated and further she
never wanted to look after the parents of the husband. PW2 is
the brother of wife’s father and PW3 is her aunt. Both of them
had deposed before court that the husband used to drink and
ill-treat the wife and on account of that she was forced to
leave the matrimonial home and she is not being looked after.
They had also stated there is no income for the wife and the
child is sick as well. So the evidence on an analysis would
reveal that little more of corroboration is there on the version
of the wife rather than that of the husband. It is also to be
stated that normally ladies do not go to a court of law
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009
-:3:-
immediately after separation for the reason they may hope
that wisdom will prevail and the matrimonial tie will again will
be strengthened. Just because the wife has not filed an
application for maintenance earlier one cannot hold that there
is no reason to live separately, especially in our society
tolerance of ladies is high and it is a special character of this
great nation. Therefore I find that the wife is living separately
from the husband only on account of valid reasons and
therefore she is entitled to claim maintenance.
4. The next question is regarding the quantum of
maintenance. The wife would contend that the husband is
running a workshop and derives a substantial income whereas
the husband would depose that he is only a coolie having a
daily income of Rs.100/-. He would also contend in evidence
that the wife is now working in a computer institution and
derives a sum of Rs.3,000/-. When the question of income
comes to him he wants to project as if he has nothing but the
at the same time he wants to make the court believe that the
wife is having better income. PWs.2 and 3 had spoken about
the fact that the wife is not having any income at all. But it
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009
-:4:-
has to be stated there is nothing on record to prove that the
husband is running a workshop. So there is no data worth
available to fix the quantum of the husband’s income. But the
husband is an young and healthy man and is capable of doing
work. So taking into consideration those aspects I feel that a
little reduction in the quantum of maintenance has to be
granted in the absence of positive evidence to prove at least
the average income of the husband. I modify the order of
maintenance by reducing the quantum of maintenance to the
wife to Rs.900/- and that of the child to Rs.700/-.
In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of modifying the order
of maintenance by fixing the maintenance of the wife at
Rs.900/- and that of the child at Rs.700/- and both payable
from 29.3.07. The mother is entitled to draw the maintenance
on behalf of the child.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-