DIVYA Vs. MURALEEDHARAN K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners were the petitioners in M.C No.126/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The respondent in this revision petition [in short RPF(FC)] was the respondent in the maintenance case (in short MC).

(2.) The revision petitioners had filed the MC, inter alia, pleading as follows:

(3.) The MC was resisted by the respondent, who filed a written objection, inter alia, pleading as follows: He admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the child. He denied the assertion that he is getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, and that he is also getting income from his property. According to him, the 1st revision petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own accord, without any sufficient reason or cause. She is residing in her parental home and has refused to resume cohabitation. The respondent is ready to resume cohabitation, if the 1st revision petitioner returns back to the matrimonial home. Despite various mediation efforts made by the relatives of the parties, the 1st revision petitioner refused to return to the matrimonial home. The respondent has filed O.P. 898/2011 before the Family Court, Palakkad, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He prayed that MC be dismissed.