K. HARIKUMAR Vs. AMBIKA HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C No.431 of 2011, granting maintenance to his wife at the rate of 2000/ - per month, and to his minor daughter at the rate of 1000/ - per month. The impugned order was passed by the Family court on 9.10.2013. The revision petitioner married the 1st respondent in May, 2006, but the matrimony did not last long. When the husband subjected her to mental and physical harassment, she had to leave the matrimonial home in October,2006. Alleging desertion and cruelty, she brought claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in 2011.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the claim of his wife on two grounds . One is that she left the matrimonial home on her own, without any reason, and her refusal to join him in matrimony is not justified. The other ground is that his wife is a professional tailor, and she can earn not less than 2500/ - per month for her maintenance.

(3.) NOTICE on admission was given to the respondent -wife. But she did not turn up to contest the revision. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. Admittedly, the wife has been residing separately since October, 2006. She has given evidence substantiating her case of cruelty. The revision petitioner has no reason or explanation why he did not take steps to have the company of his wife restored. He says that some mediators had intervened, but no such evidence was adduced in the trial court. Ext.P3 is the copy of the resolution on the complaint made by the wife before the Valavoor Branch of SNDP Union. This document shows that matrimonial dispute was talked over at the instance of some prominent SNDP office bearers, but during the mediation, the revision petitioner maintained a stand that he is not interested in continuing the matrimony. This document shows that the offer made by him is not bona fide at all. He has no case that he had made payment of anything to his wife since the separation in October 2006. The wife brought claim only in 2011. I find that the respondent -wife is in fact a neglected lady having genuine grievance against her husband. I find that her refusal to join him in the matrimony is justified. Thus, she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.