IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 114 of 2008()
1. SATHYAN,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. AMBADY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAYANTHI,AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIRAMAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008
.............................................
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.137/2007. The wife
moved an application for maintenance against the husband
and the court granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/= per
month from the date of the order. It is against that decision,
the husband has come up in revision.
2. The unfortunate couple got married in 2002 and the
wife left his house two years prior to the petition. The wife
would contend that the husband was cruel to her and he
had deprived of her gold ornaments and there was also
demand for dowry. On the other hand, the husband would
contend that the wife was never attached and she wanted to
go to her house and it was on her accord she had left the
matrimonial home. The wife has expressed her desire at
the time of examination to join the husband. But the
husband is not in a mood to take back the wife. So, it is
clear that there is misunderstanding which cannot be easily
: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008
caped. Therefore I do not want to interfere with the finding
regarding separate living.
3. Then the question is regarding the quantum. The
wife would contend that the husband is a permanent
employee of the KSRTC (Conductor) and that he is having
reasonable income and that he is also having income from
some properties. On the other hand, the husband would
contend that he is only an employee of a temporary nature
and used to get work only for 13 days. He would also
contend that the wife is having some employment in a
cashew factory having a weekly income of Rs.700/=. It
has to be stated that no valid materials are produced to
support the case of either of the parties. Even if the
husband’s argument is that he is only having 13 days’ work
in a month as a KSRTC conductor, a young man who is
capable of doing work is not expected to sit idle for the
remaining days. As he is a young man, he has to engage in
some part time employment. He cannot wash of his hands
stating that he is having some ailment. So far as back pain
is concerned except a statement of the husband, no other
: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008
materials are forthcoming to establish that fact. In the
absence of concrete evidence regarding his correct income,
I feel that a little modification can be done with reference to
the quantum that is by reducing the maintenance amount
from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,200/= with effect from the date of
the order.
4. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of by
modifying the order of maintenance payable by the husband
to the wife from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,200/=, that too payable
from the date of the order i.e., 18.1.2008.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 4 :
R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008