The court established that 'sufficient means' for maintenance should include the respondent's earning capacity, ensuring support facilitates a dignified life.

O R D E R

The revision petitioners in RP(FC) No.30/2023 are the wife and son of the respondent. They had filed MC No.183/2018 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- for the first petitioner and Rs.7,500/- for the second petitioner. The Family Court ordered monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner. The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance ordered. RP(FC) No.71/2023 is filed by the husband/father, challenging the finding regarding his liability to pay maintenance. The essential facts are as under; The parties are referred as per their status in RP(FC) No. 30/2023.

2. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 12/9/2010 and the second petitioner was born in that wedlock on 1/9/2011. Immediately, after delivery, the first petitioner had to take up the additional responsibility of looking after her mother-in-law, who was suffering from cancer. While so, the first petitioner developed constant fever and was taken to her house on 21/10/2012. She was later admitted in the Lakshmi Hospital, Ernakulam and from there, referred to the Amrutha Hospital. At the hospital, the first petitioner was diagnosed with Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which left her paralysed from waist down. The first petitioner was in coma for almost three months and thereafter, on ventilator support for another two months. The hospital bill came to Rs.29 Lakhs, out of which Rs.9 Lakhs was discounted by the hospital administration, considering the first petitioner's plight. As the family did not have funds and the respondent was not providing financial support, the public formed a committee and raised substantial amount through crowdfunding. The hospital bill was thus settled. After discharge, the first petitioner had to continue medicines and undergo physiotherapy for a long time. She could take only liquid food and had to use a bedpan and catheter. Over a period of time, her condition improved slightly and presently, she can pull herself up from the bed.

3. The respondent refuted the allegation that he had not extended support after the first petitioner was hospitalised and submitted that he was kept away by his in-laws, when they started receiving contributions from various quarters. The respondent also contended that his wages are not sufficient for his own sustenance.

Moreover, the respondent filed an original petition seeking divorce on the ground that the first petitioner's illness had rendered her unable to discharge the duties of a wife and, compulsion to continue the marriage amounts to cruelty.

4. By a common judgment, original petition for divorce filed by the husband was dismissed and the M.C. filed by the wife and son allowed ordering maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively.

5. Adv.M.Shajna, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, considering the medical condition of the first petitioner and the educational as well as other needs of the second petitioner, the amount ordered towards maintenance allowance is thoroughly inadequate. The court below committed gross illegality in fixing the quantum of maintenance as Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2000/-, on the premise that the respondent has no means or income to pay maintenance at the rate claimed by the petitioners. The respondent is working as a head load worker/packer in a private establishment. Even though his net salary is shown as Rs.11,681/-, in cross examination the respondent admitted that he is earning additional income by doing overtime work. This crucial aspect was omitted to be considered.

6. It is contended that the Family Court cannot fix the quantum, oblivious of the objective of Section 125 , which is to ameliorate the sufferings of destitute wives and children. To drive home this contention, reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Chat