Important points:
If a husband offers to maintain his wife and if the latter refuses to live with him, the Magistrate dealing with the case is empowered to consider the grounds of refusal stated by her and if convinced that she is justified in doing so, shall pass an order directing the husband to pay maintenance in disregard of the offer made by him.

ORDER :

The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Ottapalam on 08.06.2020 in M.C.No.80 of 2016. The revision petitioner is the respondent and the respondents in the revision are the petitioners in the M.C. before the Family Court. The respondent was aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively to the 1st and 2nd petitioners.

2. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of this revision are stated in brief hereunder:

For clarity the parties to this revision will be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and the petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C. before the Family Court.

3. The 1st petitioner and the respondent got married on 11.11.2013 in Kanjiravalli Siva Temple as per the religious rites and customs prevalent in their community. They lived together for sometime in the matrimonial home. On 12.11.2014, the 2nd petitioner, a girl child was born. In the matrimonial home the 1st petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondent alleging that she is not good looking and did not bring adequate gold ornaments. The 1st petitioner was hospitalised due to some illness. When she was discharged from the hospital, eventhough the doctor had advised her to take rest, the respondent did not permit her to take rest or to go to her parental home. The parents of the 1st petitioner took her to the parental home. She returned to the matrimonial home after one week but, the parents of the respondent did not allow her to enter into the matrimonial home. Therefore she again returned to the parental home. On the same day the respondent visited the parental home and took her to the matrimonial home. During the 5th month of pregnancy she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent and his mother by confining her in a room, without even providing her food and other necessaries. During the 7th month of pregnancy the respondent even refused to send her to parental home for delivery. Therefore, finding if difficult to continue the life, she left the matrimonial home. She had also preferred a complaint before Agali police following which crime No.95 of 2015 under Section 498A IPC was registered. The case is pending consideration before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. From 20.08.2014 onwards, the respondent totally deserted and neglected to maintain her and the child. In the above circumstance, she was constrained to file the case seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively to herself and the minor child.

4. The respondent had filed counter affidavit in the M.C admitting the status of the 1st and 2nd petitioners as his wife and the child. The respondent had denied the allegation of cruelty. According to him, he was maintaining the wife and the child. According to him, it was the 1st petitioner who had deserted him for her dislike to live in the company of his parents. The respondent has also denied the allegation of the 1st petitioner that he was working as a tailor in a ready made garment shop and was earning Rs.1,500/- as daily wages. According to the respondent he was doing agricultural work and was getting Rs.550/- per day. According to him, the 1st petitioner is working in a private firm and is drawing Rs.10,000/- as monthly income and therefore, he cannot be mulcted with liability to maintain her. The maintenance case was sought to be dismissed, for the reasons.

5. The 1st petitioner and the respondent had tendered oral evidence before the Family Court respectively as PW1 and RW1. Apart from the oral evidence, other evidence was not adduced by either of the parties. The Family Court appreciated the evidence and had concluded on its basis that both the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. The Family Court had fixed the quantum of monthly maintenance payable to the 1st petitioner as Rs.3,