A legally bound spouse must still provide maintenance irrespective of employment and health claims unless substantial evidence proves otherwise.

O R D E R

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023 This revision petition has been filed under Section 19 (4)

of the Family Courts Act, challenging order in MC No.378/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad dated 15.05.2018. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above MC. The Petitioners therein are the wife and children of the revision petitioner.

2. The respondents herein had approached the Family Court and claimed grant of allowance of maintenance under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. on the allegation that they did not have means of maintenance and on the assertion that the revision petitioner herein, who was employed as Store Manager in Saudi Arabia, was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month and therefore, he could pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- each to the second and third respondents.

3. The revision petitioner filed counter and raised contention that he was not working as a 'Store Manager' in Saudi Arabia as contended and he had been working as a driver and had been getting 600 Saudi Riyals as salary. It was contended further that the first respondent had 85 cents of property in her name and she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the rubber plantations therein.

4. The Family Court ventured the matter. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the respondents. Similarly, CPW1 was examined and R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. Apart from that, Ext.C1 commission report also got marked.

5. The Family Court considered the rival contentions based on the evidence and finally granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent, Rs.4,000/- to the second respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the third respondent, from the date of the petition.

6. While assailing the order impugned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that, at the time of consideration of the maintenance petition by the Family Court, the revision petitioner had been working in Saudi Arabia and he had produced salary certificate as Ext.R1 to establish that his salary was only 600 Saudi Riyals. It is submitted further that thereafter, the revision petitioner lost the above job and he was affected with cancer and he is on treatment. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel relied on Annexure A5, copy of the discharge summary issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 7. Eventhough the power of this Court to consider additional evidence and documents while considering revision is not protected under law, in order to substantiate the said contention, I have perused Annexure A5. The same would go to show that the revision petitioner was admitted on 04.02.2019, there was surgery on 06.02.2019 and he was discharged on 12.02.2019 and the process undergone by the revision petitioner is precisely stated as “left adrenal cyst excision”. The discharge summary does not suggest that the cyst which was removed is either cancerous or is of any serious consequence in any manner. No subsequent medical certificate was also produced to substantiate anything after cyst excision showing that the revision petitioner is affected with ‘carcinoma’. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner on the assertion that he was affected with cancer is not at all established even as per Annexure A5. 8. Insofar as the grant of maintenance is concerned, temporary employment either in the native country or abroad and showing less income cannot be decisive as the person, who is legally bound to maintain the wife and children, had to do menial jobs as he could so as to maintain them. In this matter, as I have already pointed out, eventhough there was surgery for cyst excision, the same in no way would suggest that the revision petitioner incapacitated from doing menial jobs and earn a reasonable sum to pay the maintenance. This is the context in which the Family Court appraised the contentions of the revi