Maintenance orders are enforceable based on the demonstrated ability of the payer, and prior court findings on abandonment and cruelty are conclusive in determining entitlement.

ORDER

The revision petitioner was the respondent in M.C.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. The respondent in this revision petition (for short, R.P.(FC)) was the petitioner in the maintenance case (in short M.C.).

2. The respondent had filed the M.C.

before the Family Court stating as follows: She was married to the revision petitioner on 27.10.2013. It was the second marriage of the revision petitioner, as his first wife had expired. He had also adopted a daughter during the subsistence of his fist marriage. At the time of marriage, the revision petitioner was employed abroad. He had taken the respondent also with him. However, he lost his job and they were returned to India. The revision petitioner, during the said period, compelled the respondent to resign her job. He assaulted her and threatened to do away with her. On account of the threat of the revision petitioner, the respondent was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. From 20.05.2014 onwards, the revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain the respondent. She was also filed O.P.No.17 of 2015 before the Family Court seeking a decree for past maintenance.

3. The revision petitioner also filed O.P.No.896 of 2014, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The revision petitioner resisted the M.C.

He filed a counter statement denying the allegations in the M.C. According to him, the respondent was living separately without sufficient cause. Though he made several attempts to effect a rapprochement, the respondent refused to resume cohabitation. The revision petitioner is aged 62 years and suffering from various ailments. He is also undergoing Ayurvedic treatment. The respondent was duty bound to resume cohabitation.

5. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried the M.C. along with O.P.Nos.896 of 2014 and 17 of 2015.

6. The revision petitioner was examined as PW1. Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked through him. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked through her. Exhibit X1 report of the Medical Board was also marked.

7. The Family Court, by the common judgment dated 22.03.2016, dismissed O.P.No.896 of 2014, filed by the revision petitioner seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and allowed O.P.No.17 of 2015 filed by the respondent seeking past maintenance. The Family Court also allowed M.C.No.12 of 2015 by directing the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent.

8. It is challenging the order passed in the M.C.No.12 of 2015 that this R.P.(FC) is filed.

9. Heard Sri.K.R.Avinash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Abu Mathew, learned counsel for the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the amount that has been ordered by the Family court at the rate of Rs.4,000/- is excessive and unreasonable. The Family Court has failed to consider Exhibit X1 Medical Board Report, which substantiates that the revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments. Even though, the revision petitioner was at the time of marriage employed abroad, at present he is unable to maintain himself. He does not have any means to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondent. According to him, he had taken the respondent along with him, while he was employed abroad. However, after he lost his employment, the respondent left his marital consortium. She is living separately without any justifiable reason or cause. Hence, he prayed that the R.P.(FC) may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.896 of 2014, filed by the revision petitioner seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, finding that the revision petitioner had treated the respondent matrimonial cruelty. The Family Court found that the respondent was living separately with sufficient reason and cause. He also argued that th