Judgment :- 1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband against his wife alleging inter alia that they are governed by the Travancore Ezhava Regulation, 1100. The main ground raised in the revision is that the court below went wrong in assuming that the parties are maru-makkathayees. The contention of the revision petitioner, who is the wife, is that the parties are makkathayees and that the provisions of the Travancore Ezhava Regulation, 1100 have no application to them. 2. The petition was filed under S.7 of the Travancore Ezhava Regulation, 1100, which provides that marriage between parties governed by the said Regulation is dissolved only in one of the following ways: "(i) by the death of either party; or (ii) by mutual consent evidenced by a registered document; or (iii) by a formal order of dissolution as hereinafter provided." S.8 of the Regulation entitles either the husband or the wife to present a petition for dissolution of the marriage. No specific grounds, as in the case of Indian Divorce Act or the Hindu Marriages Act, need be alleged Or proved for securing dissolution of the marriage under the Ezhava Regulation, 1100. The position under the Ezhava Regulation, 1100 appears, to be analogous to that under the corresponding provisions in the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. 3. Though in the memorandum of civil revision petition various contentions with particular reference to the maintainability of the petition for dissolution were raised, they were not pressed at the time of hearing, the revision petitioner taking a very reasonable and practical view of the position when she was told that her husband had already married another woman before the revision petition was filed in this Court, in the bona fide belief that the proceeding for dissolution of marriage had come to an end. The surviving question relates to the compensation to be awarded to the wife. The court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- in favour of the divorced wife. 4. The contention advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 500/- awarded by the court below is too inadequate to meet the bare requirements of a woman considering the high cost of living at present. I find considerable force in, this argument. 500/- in favour of the divorced wife. 4. The contention advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 500/- awarded by the court below is too inadequate to meet the bare requirements of a woman considering the high cost of living at present. I find considerable force in, this argument. S.9 of the Regulation provides that what is reasonable compensation shall, in the case of dispute, be determined by the court after an enquiry into the position, means and circumstances of the parties, but without going into the grounds of the proposed dissolution, and snail in no case exceed Rs. 2,000/- where the petitioner is the husband and Rs. 500/-w'he're the petitioner is the wife. This provision has remained in the statute book for about half a century now, during which time the purchasing capacity of the rupee has fallen beyond description. This aspect of the matter appears to have escaped the notice of all concerned, and the maximum limit prescribed for the award of compensation has remained static all along. The award of compensation to the divorced wife would become illusory and will not tend to serve the purpose the authorities had in mind at the time the Travancore Ezhava Regulation was promulgated in the year 1100 M.E., unless by suitable amendments a minimum is prescribed and the maximum limit is substantially raised taking into consideration the fall in the purchasing capacity of the rupee between 1100 M. E. and now. We have to bear in mind that this is an award for life, and the intention is that the divorced wife should be able to maintain herself with the interest that this amount would fetch. The interest, even when the maximum of Rs. 2000/- is awarded by way of compensation, would be only round about Rs. 100/-per annum, and one could easily imagine what this is worth now in terms of essential requirements. 5. The Madras Marumakkathayam Act has been amended incorporating S.10(a),10(b) and 10(c) which provide for maintenance to the respondent and court expenses during the pendency of the proceeding for dissolution of marriage and permanent alimony to the respondent till her (or his) marriage or death. Such orders relating to maintenance are also made appealable as if a decree of the civil court. Such orders relating to maintenance are also made appealable as if a decree of the civil court. In the absence of any such protective provision for maintenance, the lump sum compensation fixed in the Travancore Ezhava Regulation, 1100. at a maximum of Rs. 2,000/-in the context of present day needs, appears to be too inadequate. I hope and trust that public opinion would be roused by social reformers to see that a divorced wife gets a fair-deal at the hands of her husband who is given a right to seek divorce even without assigning any cause whatsoever. 6. It has been possible with the active co-operation of counsel appearing for the parties, by consent, to raise the compensation amount in this case to Rs. 1250/-. This is an award of compensation for life which is too inadequate. However, considering the fact that the respondent is only a tapper, the court below has awarded only Rs. 500/-. and the maximum limit provided by the Regulation is only Rs. 2,000/-, I should think that in this particular case the unfortunate wife has to be content with this. 7. It is now agreed before me that out of Rs. 1250/- awarded as compensation, Rs, 500/- will be paid to the revision petitioner by the respondent within one month from this date, another Rs. 500/- will be paid within seven months from this date, and the balance Rs. 250/- will.be paid before the expiry of nine months from this date. If any of the instalments, is not paid within the stipulated time, it shall be open to the revision petitioner to execute the order on payment of necessary court fee according to law. The order of the lower court is modified to the above effect. The revision petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.