C. SUDEVAN Vs. K. VASANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband is aggrieved by the maintenance order of the Family court, Palakkad in M.C No.46 of 2009, granting maintenance to his wife at the rate of 2000/ - per month. She was married by him in February, 1995 and she has been residing separately since 1997. The husband had brought an application for restitution of conjugal rights in 1999, but the said application for restitution was dismissed, when he failed to prosecute it. Later in 2009, the wife brought proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance for her and the minor daughter. The husband entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim mainly on the contention that his wife has her own source of income. He also contended that she has no sufficient reason to live separately and claim maintenance.

(2.) THE trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded oral and documentary evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1 and the husband examined himself as RW1. He also marked Exts.D1 to D4 on his side. On trial, the trial court found that the wife is justified in living separately, that she has no source of income, and that the husband is capable to maintain his wife with the salary he gets as employee in a spinning mill. Accordingly, 2000/ - per month each was ordered to his wife and the minor daughter. Maintenance awarded to the child was limited up to 10.1.2014, the date on which she attained majority. The husband is aggrieved by the order, and he has come up in revision.

(3.) ON a perusal of the case records, I find that the wife has reason to live separately from her husband who has neglected for her many years, Admittedly, she has been residing separately since 1997. In 1999, he brought petition for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was dismissed. Thereafter, he did not pursue the matter further, and he did not even make an application to have the dismissal set aside and to prosecute the matter on merits. There is reason to believe that he brought such a petition when he apprehended some legal proceedings by the wife. There is nothing to show that he had made any earnest effort to bring back his wife or to have the matrimony restored. The wife has her own grievance as a deserted and neglected wife and she is definite that the husband has not paid anything to her so far for the last so many years, since the separation in 1997. I find that she has reason to live separately, and her refusal to join her husband is justified. Accordingly, she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.