Inconsistencies in evidence and willful desertion can impact the entitlement to maintenance.

The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent herein and he had preferred this revision against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi, in Crl.M.P.No.6 of 2004, granting maintenance of a sum of Rs.1000/- per month to be paid to the respondent herein by the petitioner.

2. The case of the respondent herein is that she got married to the petitioner herein on 09.07.1989 and she was living with her husband. After few months, her husband demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also a Bullet motor cycle for which she was beaten and ill-treated her. Her husband continued to ill treat her and three years back, she was brought to her parents house by her husband and she was left there. She was staying with her parents only for the past three years. After six years of filing the application for maintenance, as she was invited by her husband, she went to his place. At that time, she saw a lady by name Maheswari along with two children residing in that house. As she questioned about it, she was threatened by her husband. She was driven out of the house. Then she filed the application for maintenance and she had no means of income and also stated that her husband was having 20 acres of land and she was getting a income of Rs.25,000/- per month.

3. The respondent herein examined her as P.W.1 and the petitioner herein also examined himself as R.W.1. According to the petitioner herein after the marriage his wife was living with him only for a period of three years and left the matrimonial home in the year 1988. Though an attempt was made to bring her, she refused to live with him. All her jewels and other belongings were returned to her. In the year 1999, he received a notice from his wife which is marked as Ex.D.1 and also sent a reply Ex.D.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein submitted that the learned Magistrate without analysing properly the evidence of D.W.1 and Exhibits marked by him as Exs.D.1 and D.2 had ordered maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the wife filed the petition only fourteen years after the marriage, though she was living separately from the year 1988, she had willfully deserted her husband and though several steps were taken by the husband, she had not agreed to join him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that it is the consistent version of the husband that after leaving the matrimonial home in the year 1988, she never came back to her husbands place, but the present version of the respondent herein is that she has not left the matrimonial home, but she was sent out of the matrimonial home only three years back which is false. In the notice sent by her marked as Ex.D.1, she had stated that she was living in the matrimonial home for the period of seventeen years, but she has not stated in her evidence when she again came back to the matrimonial home, and in her evidence, she has not stated anything in detail. The present evidence of P.W.1 that six month prior to the filing of this application, she was invited by her husband and therefore, she went to the husbands place and there she saw one Maheswari who is the friend of her husband, is only an afterthought and there is no material to support her version. After fourteen years, it is only an invented version to claim maintenance. As there is a willful desertion by the respondent herein, she is not entitled for maintenance.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent herein submitted that merely because that respondent herein did not claim maintenance for a long period may not be a ground for rejecting the maintenance amount.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Chaturbhuj vs. Sita bai (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1400(SC)), wherein it has been observed as follows:

"5.The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling t