The burden of proof lies on the party affirming the fact, and financial circumstances are considered in awarding maintenance.

Common Judgment:

K. Mohan Ram, J.

1. The appellant in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3507 of 2009 is the husband of the respondent.

2. The appellant initially filed IDOP No.140 of 2006 before the District Court, Cuddalore, against the respondent herein under Section 10 (1) (vii) and (x) and Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking a decree of nullity of marriage between the parties, dated 22.08.2003, on the ground of impotency of the respondent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the said petition and alternatively sought for a decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground of cruelty and on account of non-consummation of marriage due to wilful act of the respondent. The said petition was later transferred to the file of the Family Court at Puducherry and re-numbered as MOP No.30 of 2008.

3. The respondent / wife filed M.C.No.38 of 2007 before the Family Court, Puducherry, under Section 125 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant.

4. After trial, the Family Court, Puducherry, by its common judgment and decree, dated 03.08.2009, dismissed MOP No.30 of 2008 and ordered M.C.No.38 of 2007 by directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-as monthly maintenance to the respondent herein.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.O.P.No.30 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.No.1253 of 2009 against the order passed in M.C.No.38 of 2007. Not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Puducherry, the respondent has filed Crl.R.C.No.1810 of 2011 seeking enhancement of maintenance.

6. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above appeal and Criminal Revision Cases, are set out below:-

The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their betrothal took place on 04.07.2002. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised as per the Christian Rites and ceremonies on 22.08.2003 and the marriage was registered on 08.09.2003. As the appellant was employed at Dubai, he left for Dubai on 19.09.2003 leaving the respondent at Cuddalore. The respondent joined the appellant at Dubai in December 2003. The respondent left Dubai to India on 28.02.2004 and thereafter there was no cohabitation between them.

7. The case of the appellant, as pleaded in the MOP, is as follows:-

At the time of betrothal and marriage, the respondent was given 16 sovereigns of jewels and the marriage was an arranged marriage. After marriage and before the appellant left for Dubai, on 19.09.2003, the marriage was not consummated due to the respondent's unwillingness and abnormal attitude towards the normal sexual activities. Even when the appellant and the respondent were living together at Dubai, the activities of the respondents were strange and abnormal and the appellant was mentally tortured by the respondent by several activities. Even at Dubai, the marriage was not consummated, since the respondent did not have the physical capacity and mental attitude to have the sexual intercourse. It later transpired that she was having physical disability for having sexual intercourse. The appellant learnt that the respondent had to undergo some surgical procedure at a hospital at Puducherry. Till the date of filing of the petition, the marriage was not consummated due to the respondent's impotency and physical incapacity. The respondent herself admitted that she has not attained puberty and that matter was suppressed at the time of marriage.

8. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent never prepared food and only ordered food from the hotels when she was at Dubai. Everyday the respondent tortured the appellant by making unnecessary and suspicious questioning about him. She was making false accusations against the appellant to the neighbours. When the appellant took t