Important points:
The reason that distinguishes is that, in case of a deserted and neglected wife, in cases of living in adultery, the lady would be maintained by the adulterer and need not have to worry about her sustenance, as in the case of a lady remarried. A wife once chosen to lead a life in adultery with a man cannot claim that she is a destitute-The object of Parliament behind the incorporation of Section 125 in the Code of Criminal Procedure being prevention of destitution and vagrancy, a wife who is not a destitute is totally disentitled to claim monthly maintenance.

ORDER :

The revision on hand is filed challenging an order passed by Family Court, Thalassery on 29.01.2020. The revision petitioners are petitioners before the Family Court in M.C. No.75/2019. The Family Court, Thalassery allowed the M.C. in part on the following terms:

I. The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the 2nd petitioner with effect from the date of the petition i.e. 01.03.2019.

II. The 2nd petitioner shall get maintenance only up to his age of majority.

III. The 1st petitioner shall collect the maintenance amount for and on behalf of petitioner No.2.

IV. The claim of maintenance for the 1st petitioner is negatived.”

2. Aggrieved by the order disallowing the claim of the 1st petitioner for maintenance for the reasons that the petitioner though unemployed at the relevant time is capable of getting an employment in view of her previous experience as an employee in the managerial cadre in a financial institution at Gulf and that she is living in adultery with a man namely Praveen. Challenge was also raised against the sum ordered as monthly maintenance to the 2nd petitioner for the reason that it is on the lower side.

3. Statement of facts of the case being relevant for consideration of the revision are made hereunder in brief. For clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C.

4. The 1st petitioner and the respondent got married on 17.06.1994 at Sadhoo Kalyanamandapam, Kannur as per the customary rights prevailing in the Hindu Community. Two children were born in the wedlock. From the inception of the marriage itself, the conduct of the respondent and his family members towards the 1st petitioner was indifferent. They did not allow her to mingle with others or to leave the house without their permission. They used to ill-treat her. After six months of the marriage the respondent went to Gulf to resume his job. He came back immediately and after staying together for two months, left again for Gulf. In the meantime the 1st petitioner got conceived, but proper treatment was denied to her. The respondent who was educated only upto Plus Two, had inferiority complex on account of the higher educational qualification of the 1st petitioner. When the child attained the age of three years, the respondent insisted the 1st petitioner to go for work. Therefore, she was constrained to do job after putting the child in the play school. She was getting Rs.1,50,000/- as salary. The salary of the 1st petitioner was managed by the respondent and was reluctant to spare any amount for her. In the year 2002, the 1st petitioner gave birth to the 2nd child. Though, she decided to resign her employment for taking care of the child, the respondent was against that. The 1st petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager in the year 2008 and was given a car and a rent free accommodation by her employer. The respondent found pleasure in enjoying all the amenities received by the 1st petitioner. He insisted the 1st petitioner to visit the house of his sister who was settled at Gulf, but the 1st petitioner does not like that. For the reason the respondent started to scold her. On 30.10.2001, a landed property was purchased by the respondent at Chakkarakkal utilising the earnings of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner came to know much later that the deed in respect of the property was registered in the name of the respondent alone. A wordy altercation ensued on questioning that, and it culminated in causing physical hurt. In 2010, a house was also purchased at Pallikkulam utilising the earnings of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner and the respondent arrived at their hometown to attend the marriage of the son of one of the friends of the former. After attending the marriage the respondent hurried to Gulf. Utilising the income of the 1st petitioner, the respondent started a busines