IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious disability or ill health of a spouse is a relevant consideration while quantifying maintenance, as evidenced by the disability certificate and relevant judgments referred to by the court.

These cases arise out of M.C.No.3014 of 2012 pending before the Principal Family Court, Bangalore and parties to the lis in all these cases are common; they are husband and wife. Therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the matrimonial case i.e., husband is referred to as the petitioner and wife as the respondent. Writ Petition No.48615 of 2013 is preferred by the wife.

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner and the respondent got married on 16-05-2011 and have a daughter born from the wedlock. The marriage between the two appears to have floundered and on the floundering of the said relationship, the husband prefers M.C.No.3014 of 2012 seeking annulment of marriage that had taken place between the two. The allegation of the husband was that the wife had left the matrimonial house on her own volition. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the claim of the husband seeking annulment of marriage or defence of the wife. In the said petition, the wife files an application seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The concerned Court, after hearing the parties on the application, grants the wife interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-per month in terms of its order dated 30-11-2012. The wife then files a memo of calculation before the concerned Court on 08-07-2013 claiming arrears to be paid by the husband towards the maintenance so awarded. The concerned Court rejects the memo. The rejection of the memo forms the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.48615 of 2013 coupled with a prayer to enhance interim maintenance. During the pendency of the said petition, the husband/petitioner suffers a stroke resulting in 75% disability, due to which, he had resigned from his work and on the ground that the husband has not paid maintenance, to recover arrears of maintenance, the wife/respondent initiates execution petition seeking execution of the order of maintenance. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 05-02-2016, directs the father of the husband to pay arrears of maintenance. When that is not adhered to, a fine levy warrant and arrest warrant are issued against the husband on 12-07-2017 and 10-08-2017. This forms the subject in Writ Petition No.41608 of 2017. The other writ petition in W.P.No.41607 of 2017 is again preferred by the husband calling in question the order passed on 10-08-2017 on I.A.No.8 in M.C.No.3014 of 2012 whereby the application filed by the husband to recall the order of maintenance comes to be rejected. Therefore, Writ Petition No.41607 of 2017 is preferred by the husband challenging the rejection of I.A.No.8 seeking recall of the order granting maintenance and Writ Petition No.41608 of 2017 challenges the order of issuing fine levy warrant and arrest against the husband.

3. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the husband/petitioner and Smt M. Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the wife/respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the wife/respondent would vehemently contend that the husband/petitioner has abandoned the wife at the time when she was carrying the child. She has maintained herself all along and the husband has refused to maintain either the wife or the child, and therefore, seeks appropriate order enhancing grant of maintenance.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the husband/petitioner would contend that maintenance today is a dream to be paid by the husband as he has suffered disability of 75% which does not get him any job. He is no longer an able bodied person to search for job and maintain the wife and the child.

6. In reply the counsel for the wife/respondent would submit that the father of the petitioner has several properties. Therefore, the father could maintain the wife and the child of the petitioner and they cannot be left in the lurch. Both the petitioner and