HARIHARAN Vs. SHEEBA K.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr. P.C.') is the revision petitioner herein. He married the respondent in March 2011 but they have been residing separately since October 2011. Alleging cruelty during the short lived matrimony, and also alleging desertion and neglect since the separation, the wife brought claim under Section 125 Cr. P.C. as M.C. No. 68/2013 before the Family Court, Thalassery.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and resisted the wife's claim mainly on the contention that she has no reason to live separately. He also contended that he does not have sufficient income to pay maintenance as claimed by the wife.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records, I find that the real grievance of the revision petitioner is regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court. Of course, the matrimony was short lived, but the grievance and complaint of the wife is that even during the short period of seven months, she had to suffer at the hands of her husband. Of course clear instances of physical assault or cruelty are not satisfactorily proved. However, I find that the wife has some genuine grievance against her husband. Separation since October 2011 is practically admitted by the husband. There is nothing to show that he had made payment of anything to his wife. It was submitted that even after the maintenance order, the husband did not care to pay anything to his wife, except the amount deposited as a condition for stay of execution of the order. Anyway, I find that a clear case of neglect stands proved. Refusal of the wife to live with the husband is justifiable in this case, and so she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. I also find that there is no genuine offer in this case from the side of the husband. He did not turn up to adduce any oral evidence of his own. There is nothing to show that he had made any earnest effort since the separation to have the company of his wife restored. Thus I find on facts that the wife in this case is a deserted and a neglected lady, entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C.