A husband's statutory obligation to provide maintenance to his wife persists despite prior financial contributions, and can be increased based on the wife's circumstances.

J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

The parties in the above proceedings are husband and wife.

2. In Mat. Appeal No.488 of 2020, the appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. The wife is challenging the judgment and decree in OP No.1243 of 2014, as her prayer for money and gold were declined. The husband filed Cross Objection No.81 of 2020 against the very same judgment, by which maintenance was ordered to the wife. FAO No. 62 of 2023 is filed by the husband, challenging the attachment ordered in that OP as per order in I.A.No.1845 of 2014.

3. Both the appellant and respondent are senior citizens.

Their marriage was solemnised on 31^st Edavam, 1973. She filed OP No.1243 of 2014 for recovery of money, gold and maintenance. According to her, at the time of marriage, she was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and apart from that, 35.5 cents of property was agreed to be given to her from her family. Her entire gold ornaments were misused by the respondent. He sold away her property and misappropriated the amount for his own purposes. Their matrimonial life was miserable due to the cruel nature and wayward life of the respondent. Three children were born in their lawful wedlock. In the year 1996, Rs. 3 lakh was given by the appellant to the respondent, for purchasing a property. Instead of purchasing the property in her name, he purchased the same in his own name without her knowledge. The respondent sold away 337 cents of land for a total consideration of Rs.1,68,50,000/- and deposited more than Rs.1 Crore in Indian Overseas Bank, Vadasserikonam. On 25.10.2014, the respondent assaulted the appellant and she was forcibly thrown out of his house. So she filed OP No.1243 of 2014, for recovery of gold, money, maintenance etc.

4. The respondent filed objection saying that he never misused or misappropriated her gold ornaments or money. In fact, the appellant and her children deserted him and on account of their compulsion, he was forced to sell away his property, and from the sale proceeds, an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was given to the appellant and her children. The respondent was having only the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, which is in deposit before Bank. She attached that Bank Account and so, he is not able to withdraw any amount from his account.

5. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the appellant, RWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B15 were marked from the side of the respondent and Ext.C1 was marked as Court Exhibit.

6. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Family Court declined her prayer for recovery of money and gold, and partly allowed the OP by awarding maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant preferred this appeal, and the respondent preferred Cross Objection No.81 of 2020, challenging the legality of the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.

7. The respondent/husband filed FAO No.62 of 2023, against the attachment ordered by the Family Court in I.A.No.1845 of 2014 covering A schedule landed property and B schedule Bank Account.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the wife as well as the husband.

7. Now let us see whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment or in the order in I.A.No.1845 of 2014, warranting interference by this Court.

8. Learned Family Court found that there was nothing to show that the appellant/wife was having 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage or to show that the respondent misused or misappropriated her gold ornaments. So her prayer for recovery of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments was declined. In the absence of any materials to show that she was having 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, or to prove its entrustment, the Family Court is justified in finding that she was not entitled for a decree for 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

9. Regarding Rs.3 lakh alleged to have been given by the appellant for purchasing property also, there was no evidence