The central legal point established is the husband's obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and child, and the expectation that a healthy male should strive to earn and provide maintenance.

The whole kit and caboodle of facts relevant for the disposal of this revision would run thus:-

The respondents herein filed M.C.48 of 2004 in the Family Court, Coimbatore seeking maintenance as against the revision petitioner herein on the ground that the revision petitioner being the husband of first respondent and father of the 2nd respondent herein neglected to maintain them. Since the revision petitioner resisted the claim for maintenance, enquiry was conducted. On the side of the respondents herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner, though two witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, no documents were marked. Ultimately, the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of the 1st respondent herein and a sum of Rs.500/-per month in favour of the 2nd respondent herein payable by the revision petitioner.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:-

The revision petitioner did not neglect to maintain the respondents whereas the first respondent only was responsible for causing rift in the matrimonial relationship between herself and the revision petitioner. The allegation of dowry made by 1st respondent was baseless. Therefore the revision petitioner filed an application in H.M.O.P. No.399 of 2001 as against the respondents seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Without properly appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court simply awarded such maintenance warranting interference by this Court.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of mind on the part of the family Court in awarding maintenance.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that even the said HMOP was dismissed and the revision petitioner is not earning any amount. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that at no point of time, he was responsible for the cleavage in the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent and he has no income to provide maintenance to the respondents herein. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Family Court.

6. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents would by narrating the facts submit that absolutely there is no ground for interference in the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court and in fact the maintenance awarded itself is very meagre.

7. The fact that the revision petitioner himself has chosen to file HMOP for restitution of conjugal rights as against R1 herein would speak volumes that R1s conduct was not blameworthy or totally unworthy of leading the life of a housewife with the revision petitioner. In such a case the Family Court was justified in holding that husband should necessarily provide maintenance to her. Viewing this matter in that angle, I am of the view that finding of fact by the Family Court regarding the liability of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to R1 cannot be found fault with. It is beyond the question that the petitioner should necessarily pay maintenance to his child, whether the child is in his custody or in the custody of the R1 herein.

8. The contention of the petitioner that he has no income for maintaining the respondents, warrants no consideration by this Court because the trite proposition of law is that a healthy male is expected to see that he is striving hard and straining every nerve and also he is toiling and moiling like anything to earn and provide maintenance to his wife and child.

9. The suggestion that wife was earning is nothing but a plea dished out for the purpose of the revision petitioner wriggling out of liability to pay maintenance. As such I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court.

10.