A spouse's entitlement to maintenance is upheld where the other spouse has the financial means to pay and the claiming spouse lacks independent income.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner was the respondent in MC No.219/2019 filed by his wife before the Family Court, Nedumangad. In the maintenance case, the wife/respondent herein claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondent alleged that the revision petitioner had deserted her on 10/08/2017 after contracting a second marriage, that the revision petitioner is conducting jewellery business under the name and style 'SK Jewellary' and is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the business. Further, the revision petitioner is having landed properties, from which he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

2. The revision petitioner countered the claim and submitted that he had sold the jewellery business to his son and is not earning any income. The revision petitioner avered that the respondent is living with her elder son and does not require maintenance allowance from her husband for sustenance.

3. In order to substantiate her claim, the wife examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. The revision petitioner mounted the dock and gave evidence as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D5 documents. The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal contentions, found the revision petitioner liable to pay maintenance allowance and fixed the quantum as Rs.4,000/- per month. Aggrieved, this revision petition is filed.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent is the revision petitioner's legally wedded wife and the parties are residing separately since 2017. That the respondent does not have independent source of income to maintain herself is also not in dispute. The only question therefore is whether the quantum of maintenance is excessive or not. In this regard it is pertinent to note that, except a copy of the licence issued by the Grama Panchayat in the name of the revision petitioner's son, no document was produced before the Family Court to substantiate the averment that the jewellery business is transferred to the revision petitioner's son. Being so, the Family Court was justified in refusing to accept the revision petitioner's case that no income is received from the jewellery business. The Family Court having fixed the quantum of maintenance after taking into account all relevant factors, that part of the order also do not warrant interference.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.