The court emphasized the necessity for a husband to provide maintenance to prevent destitution of the wife, requiring further inquiry into both parties' financial capacities.

ORDER

The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 25.7.2023 in M.C.No.28 of 2021 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, directing payment of maintenance to the respondent. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was registered on 7.9.2018 for the purpose of availing permanent residence in Canada. Subsequently, the parties went through a marriage as per their religious custom at Guruvayur temple on 24.11.2018. The petitioner was settled in Canada. After the marriage, the respondent was also taken to there.

2. The respondent alleges that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty. She pleaded that the petitioner forcefully administered narcotic drugs to her. On 14.5.2020, the petitioner physically tortured the respondent and administered a chemical compound named Drano forcefully as an attempt to kill her. According to the respondent, in the incident, she sustained burn injuries damaging her vocal cord and also some of her internal organs. She lost her ability to speech. She was taken back to India on 12.12.2020. On reaching home, the respondent preferred a complaint before Chottanikkara Police, based on which Crime No.776/2020 was registered. After the incident in which she was compelled to take the drug Drano, she became incapacitated to do any job. She requires a substantial amount for her future treatment. She also requires a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her monthly maintenance. The respondent alleges that the petitioner misappropriated her entire assets.

3. The petitioner denied the allegations raised by the respondent. According to the petitioner, after reaching Canada, there were changes in the behaviour of the respondent. She had been a regular drug user. Under intoxication, the respondent would become imaginative, and would always quarrel with the petitioner. The respondent continuously ill-treated the petitioner. The petitioner has lost his job abroad. He is presently working as a Supervisor in a University canteen, and his monthly income is only $ 2500 CAD, which is equivalent to Rs.1,50,000/-. He has to spend Rs.66,000/- towards house rent, Rs.60,000/- towards his food, clothing and other expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards repayment of the credit card loan. He also wants to take care of his parents, who are sick and infirm.

4. The parties led evidence. The Family Court considered the maintenance case along with the other connected matters and jointly tried the cases together. Based on the oral evidence of the respondent’s parents and Ext.X3 accounts statement, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent received a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- by way of collecting from various endeavours to meet her expenses for the treatment, and therefore, the Family Court declined to grant the claim for treatment expenses of the respondent. However, the trial Court concluded that as there was no evidence to show that the respondent had any employment and taking into account that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month, the Family Court ordered a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following grounds to challenge the impugned order:-

(1) The respondent has not produced the bank statement for the past three years along with the affidavit filed by her in compliance with the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [ (2021) 2 SCC 24 ] .

(2) The respondent is presently working in Canada, earning a substantial income.

(3) The petitioner, who is a Canadian citizen is residing in India without any job.

(4) The petitioner is not in a position to leave India in view of the directions of this Court taking into account the fact that he is facing