IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 216 of 2005()
1. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, SON OF MAYIN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FATHIMA, D/O.MARAKKAR,
... Respondent
2. SALMAN FARIS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Manjeri in M.C.36/05. The wife and child moved for
maintenance and the Family Court granted maintenance at the
rate of Rs.750 to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child. It is
against that decision the husband has come up in revision.
2. Heard the counsel. Learned counsel very strongly
contends before me that really there is no reason for the wife
to live separately and the husband is prepared to maintain her
provided she comes with him. It has come out in evidence
that there was some misgivings between the two and when
she came back to the matrimonial home she found another
lady she is characterized as the first wife of the husband, i.e.
the revision petitioner herein. It is true that under law
governing the parties one can marry twice or more but the law
is more clear that there must be sufficient reason for another
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2005
-:2:-
marriage and the husband must be totally aware that he has
to look after the wives in an equitable manner. When the wife
finds another lady there in the matrimonial home it may not
be possible for them to live together and that can be found as
a genuine reason for living separately. It is contended that he
will take back the wife and child. At the time of the cross
examination there was no such case and it indicate the
reluctance of the husband. Therefore the Family Court found
that the wife is entitled to live separately along with the child
and claim maintenance and accordingly ordered maintenance
at the rate of Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per month which by any
stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side.
Therefore there is no merit in the revision and hence the same
is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-