Point of Law:Maintenance – Educated Wife unable to maintain herself - Though a person may have eligibility to be appointed in a post in any public office or may have a good educational qualification, but still, he/she may be unable to earn his/her livelihood because of lack of any employment or any inability to earn. It is in that context, the facts and circumstances of each and every case has to be analysed.

ORDER :

The present petitioner was the respondent in C.Mis.296/2008, in the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Mysore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Family Court") instituted by the present respondent as a petitioner therein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), seeking maintenance from the respondent therein, at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month.

2. It was the contention of the petitioner therein (wife) in the Family Court that the marriage with the respondent therein (husband) was held on 08-06-2003 in K.R. Nagar, Mysore, as per Hindu rites. After marriage, they resided together at Bengaluru for some Period. Thereafter, they were separated and the wife continued to be residing separately in her brother's house at Mysuru.

3. According to the respondent therein (husband), after his marriage with the petitioner therein, he noticed that she had some problem with her monthly periods and was bleeding profusely during menstrual period and that she could not lead a happy marital life with her husband. Though several Doctors were consulted in that regard, but the same was of no use. Ultimately, it was found that there was a serious problem in her uterus, which was not a curable disease.

It was his further case that his wife also underwent a surgery and uterus was removed and there was no chance of she be-getting any child. This destroyed his dreams of having a progeny, as such, he was very much depressed. It was his contention that despite the same, the wife was making several false allegations against him and had left his company.

4. In the meantime, it is worth to be noted here that, the present petitioner (husband) had also filed a matrimonial case before the same Family Court in M.C.No.489/2009, against the present respondent (wife) under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "H.M. Act"), seeking dissolution of the marriage. The Family Court tried both the matters together, wherein both parties led their evidence and got marked documents.

5. After hearing both side, the Family Court by its common judgment dated 03-01-2013 allowed the petition in M.C.No.489/2009 filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the H.M. Act. It dissolved the marriage held between the parties in the petition. It also allowed-in-part the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in C.Mis.296/2008 by the wife and directed the husband to pay maintenance to his wife (present respondent) @ Rs.3,000/-per month from the date of the petition.

Being aggrieved by the said order regarding maintenance passed in C.Mis.No.296/2008, the respondent in the Family Court husband as preferred the present revision petition.

6. In view of the fact that the respondent wife failed to appear before this Court even after service of notice upon her and since she remained un-represented, this Court by its order dated 08-01-2021, appointed learned counsel -Smt. Archana K.M., as Amicus Curiae for the respondent to defend the case of the respondent (wife).

7. The Family Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent (wife) are physically present in the Court.

9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Family Court records.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the order under revision is perverse, illegal and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her argument submitted that the marital relationship between the parties as on the date of institution of the C.Mis.296/2008 that, the parties were husband and wife is an admitted fact. She further su