KRISHNASREE Vs. ROHIT THILAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arose from the order passed in M.C. No. 55 of 2008 on the files of the Family Court, Alappuzha, which was filed by the revision petitioner in R.P.(FC) No. 391 of 2010 against the revision petitioner in R.P.(FC) No. 409 of 2010. The revision petitioner in R.P.(FC) No. 391 of 2010 is the wife of the revision petitioner in R.P.(FC) No. 409 of 2010. (For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as in the M.C.). According to the petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 11/5/2005. No children had been born out in that wed-lock. According to the petitioner, the respondent is an epileptic patient, so that he is not capable of discharging his marital obligation to the petitioner. She and her relatives wanted to terminate the matrimonial relationship in accordance with law. But he refused to co-operate for the dissolution of marriage and he purposefully deserted her. Now she is under the care and protection of her parents. According to her, she has no job or income so as to earn for her livelihood. On the other hand, the respondent has got a deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs in a bank at Mavelikara and he has got landed property also. In short, she is unable to maintain herself; whereas the respondent has sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to her. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

(2.) The respondent filed an objection admitting the marital status of the petitioner; but he contended that he is not responsible for the separation of spouses. It is his case that the petitioner is a mentally ill person and he is not suffering from any kind of illness or disease as alleged by the petitioner. It is also contended that due to her psychopathic disorder she could not discharge her marital obligation to the respondent. In the above circumstance, at the instance of the N.S.S. Karayogam authorities, they have entered into an agreement to live separately. The said agreement was executed on 20/8/2005 and ever since 2005 the spouses have been living separately by mutual consent. All monetary liabilities were settled and gold ornaments in the possession of each spouse were exchanged. So, in view of the agreement to live separately by mutual consent, the petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from him. It is also contended that he is not having a deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs whereas the petitioner is a Beautician by profession, who is earning an income of Rs. 8,000/- per mensem. So she is able enough to maintain herself.

(3.) On the above rival pleadings both parties adduced evidence. The petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Court Judge directed the respondent to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. The legality and propriety of the entitlement of maintenance allowance and the correctness of the quantum of amount directed to be paid as monthly maintenance allowance are under challenge in this revision petition.