Point of Law: Sub Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C says that a wife will not be entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance if she refuses to live with her husband without any valid reasons.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed against the final order passed by Family Court, Pathanamthitta (for short 'the court below') on 29.10.2018 in M.C.No.238/2017. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. The Family Court has allowed the M.C and directed the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of the petition and also permitted her to realise the cost from the revision petitioner. The said order is assailed in the revision on hand.

2. Parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C.

3. The contention of Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel was that the respondent was at gulf at the relevant time when the M.C was considered by the court below and was represented by his Power of Attorney Holder. According to him the court below had posted the case successively within a gap of 10-15 days for adducing evidence from his side. According to him, the respondent had filed counter statement in the M.C. But since he was at gulf, could not attend the court below and adduce evidence based on the contentions raised in the objection. Therefore the court below has passed the impugned order ignoring the contentions.

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had sought for monthly maintenance allowance on three grounds, the 1st ground was medical, the 2nd ground was educational and the 3rd ground was difficulties in life. According to him though it was stated by her in the M.C that she was studying radiology course, it has come out in cross examination that her education was completed prior to marriage itself. According to the learned counsel, though it was further contended by the petitioner that she has left the matrimonial home, since she was locked up in a room and was denied with permission to pursue with her studies, the said contentions are devoid of any basis. The court below has also failed to consider that the petitioner has left the family of the husband without sufficient reasons. According to him if that aspect was taken care of by the court below the M.C ought not to have been allowed in favour of the petitioner, since she then would be disentitled to claim maintenance as per the provisions of the Code. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the above circumstances the impugned order is liable to be set aside and M.C. No.238/2017 needs to be remanded to the court below for enabling the respondent to adduce evidence on various contentions projected by him in the counter statement filed in the M.C.

5. This Court has called for a report from the court below. It was reported by the court below by letter dated 14.09.2021 as follows:

“M.C.No.238/2017 filed by Smt.Minnu Thomas against her husband Rojo Thomas was allowed as per order dated 28.10.2018. In that case though, the respondent was entered appearance and filed vakalath on 20.02.2018, he did not file the counter to M.C even after giving 5 postings and the Court ordered last chance for counter. At last on 10.08.2018, the respondent was set exparte. Then MC was posted for evidence of the petitioner to 13.08.2018. Then the respondent filed counter and Crl.M.P.No.294/2018 to set aside exparte order. That petition was allowed and accepted counter on 14.08.2018. Then posted the case for evidence to 11.09.2018. On that day the respondent prayed for cross examination of the petitioner and the prayer was allowed on cost of Rs.500/-and posted to 15.09.2018. On 15.09.2018, the petitioner was cross examined and evidence of the petitioner was closed though the respondent was absent. Then the case was adjourned to 05.10.2018 with a direction that the respondent should be present on that date. But respondent was absent on 05.10.2018 also. Then respondent's evidence was closed since the respondent has not offered any evidence. The Court heard the matter on that date itse