SUGUNAN Vs. KANAKAMANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannoor on 16.5.2006 in M.C. No. 25/2003, granting maintenance to his wife and minor daughter at the rate of just Rs. 500/ - each per month. It is seen that revision was filed in 2007, but consideration was unfortunately delayed till this date. The learned Counsel for the respondents complained that the revision petitioner has not so far made payment of any amount. The first respondent was married by the revision petitioner years back, and the child was born on 26.12.1994. The first respondent left the matrimonial home with the child on 2.12.1999, and she has been residing separately with the child ever since the separation. Her grievance is that she had been subjected to extreme acts of mental and physical cruelty, and that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She also alleges that her husband has not so far provided anything to her and the child since the separation.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim made by his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the contention that his wife has no reason to live separately, and that he is not capable of providing maintenance as claimed by his wife and child.

(3.) ON hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find no merit in this revision, and I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed. It has come out in evidence that the first respondent could continue in the matrimonial home only for a few years, and she left the matrimonial home when she felt the acts of her husband unbearable. A clear case of neglect or desertion for years stands well proved. There is absolutely nothing to show that the revision petitioner had made payment of anything to his wife since the separation on 2.12.1999. The maintenance claim came only 2003. The revision petitioner has no excuse or explanation why he did not pay anything to his wife and child for years. Thus I find that a clear case of neglect stands well proved. This is sufficient ground for a wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.