IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 35 of 2006()
1. SANTHOSH, S/O.BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDU, D/O.DIVAKARAN,
... Respondent
2. DHRISYA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 35 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Kozhikode in M.C.95/04. It is an application filed for
maintenance by the wife and daughter of the revision
petitioner. The couple got married in 1999 and a child has
been born in the wedlock. It is the case of the wife that the
husband and the members of the family used to ill-treat her
demanding dowry and ultimately she was sent away from the
matrimonial home and thereafter the husband had not chosen
to take any care to look after them. On the contra the
husband would contend that the wife is of a quarreling nature
and she wanted to live separately and therefore she used to
pick up quarrels. The revision petitioner is looking after his
mentally ill sister as well as the ailing mother and therefore
she always wanted to be away from the matrimonial home. It
is also contended that the wife is having a part time job of a
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 35 OF 2006
-:2:-
servant maid in two houses and she is getting about
Rs.1,500/-. The learned Family Court Judge on an analysis
arrived at a decision that there are reasonable grounds for the
wife to live separately and awarded Rs.1,250/- to the wife and
Rs.800/- to the daughter. It is against that decision the
revision is preferred.
2. Heard. I had also gone through the pleadings and
evidence available in the matter. The contentions of the wife
are that she had been ill-treated which had forced her to be
away from the matrimonial home. When at an young age that
too with a child of 4 years no wife would like to leave the
company of the husband unless there are compelling
circumstances. She has no resources also to lead an
independent life as well. Therefore her version appears to be
more probable and just because the mother is unwell or the
sister is mentally ill one cannot jump to the conclusion that
she has created an atmosphere to go away from the house.
Therefore the said findings does not call for any interference.
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 35 OF 2006
-:3:-
3. The next question is regarding the quantum. The
evidence is only oath against oath. It is the case of the wife
that the husband is doing work of stitching beds and also
profits from the immovable property. Nothing is brought out
regarding the immovable property but the admission is only
with respect to the existence of two coconut trees in the
house. According to the husband he is only a bed stitcher and
his income is only Rs.100/- per day and that too he may not
get work on all days. Materials available would show that the
ailing mother and mentally ill sister are residing with him and
the brother of the revision petitioner is living in another house.
So there is real necessity for the revision petitioner to look
after his mother as well as the ailing sister. One cannot hold
that every day this person will have work and that he can get
Rs.6,000/- as income as found by the Family Court. So it has
also to be understood that one may not be having work for all
the 30 days and even if there is work only for 22 or 23 days.
The income will be certainly in between Rs.4,000/- and
Rs.4,500/-. The husband has to look after himself, his
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 35 OF 2006
-:4:-
mentally ill sister and ailing mother. They have also to be fed
as well as medicines have to be purchased for their welfare.
So taking care of the entire situation I feel this is a fit case
where the maintenance awarded has to be reduced to
Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to the daughter.
4. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of by
reducing the maintenance of the wife to Rs.1,000/- and that of
the daughter to Rs.600/- and it shall have effect from
24.3.2004 onwards.
R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-