Point of Law: Section 125 provides maintenance to wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

ORDER :

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.106/2019 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery. The respondents herein are the original petitioners in the above M.C.

2. Heard Dr.Varghese Mundackal, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Advocate T.Asaf Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as to their status before the Family Court as `petitioners’ and `respondent’.

4. The petitioners, who are the wife and child of the respondent, had approached the Family Court and claimed maintenance @ Rs.15,000/-per month for the 1st petitioner and Rs.12,000/-per month for the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, the respondent married the 1st petitioner and they were residing together as husband and wife at the house of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner was born during this period. Thereafter, the respondent took the petitioner and the minor to Qatar, where he had been doing business. However, the respondent failed to pay maintenance to the petitioners, though he had an income of Rs.2 lakh per month from his business in Qatar. According to the petitioners, they did not have any means of maintenance and, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay allowance of maintenance for them.

5. The respondent filed objection and resisted the claim for maintenance. It is admitted that the respondent was abroad from 2003 onwards and the respondent had given all his hard earned money to the 1st petitioner. Further the respondent came back from Qatar on 04.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner also came from Qatar around 20.06.2018. Later, the petitioner went to Qatar many times without permission of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent lost his job abroad and he had no contact with the petitioner due to her illegal dealings and in the month of March, 2019, the petitioner went to Qatar along with the minor child. The educational qualification of the 1st petitioner as an MBA degree holder also was pointed out. It was alleged that the respondent incurred loss in the business and thereafter the respondent voluntarily left his company and made relationship with one Kamarudeen.

6. Now the 1st petitioner is in relationship with one Kamarudeen and the said relationship led to marital collapse.

7. The Family Court considered O.P.No.292/2019 and M.C.No.106/2019 together. The 1st petitioner examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The respondent got examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on his side.

8. On appreciation of evidence, the Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs.10,000/-each to the petitioners w.e.f 02.04.2019. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

9. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the 1st petitioner has been living in adultery and, therefore, the respondent is not bound to pay maintenance to the 1st petitioner. In order to ascertain this contention, when the learned counsel was asked to justify the evidence to support adulterous life of the 1st petitioner, he submitted that Crl.M.Appl.No.2/2023 has been filed along with 3 documents as Annexures A1 to A3.

10. It is not in dispute that, in order to prove the adulterous life of the 1st petitioner, convincing evidence to be adduced. In fact, no convincing evidence adduced to prove the adulterous life of the 1st petitioner before the Family Court, rather than the oral version of the respondent, who got examined as RW1. But the specific case put up by the 1st petitioner is that she lived along with RW1 till December, 2018 (this fact is admitted by RW1, the respondent also) and she left the company of the respondent thereafter since the respondent treated her cruelly on alleging extramarital relationship. In the said circumstances the Family Court found that the 1st petitioner was j