Husbands have an obligation to support their wives financially, and courts can estimate income for maintenance calculations under Section 125 of the Code.

C O M M O N O R D E R

As these revision petitions are filed challenging the order in M.C.No.49/2018 of the Family Court, Pala, directing the husband to pay the wife monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/- from the date of application(06.07.2018), they are being disposed of by this common order. R.P.(FC)No.382/2023 is filed by the husband assailing the impugned order and R.P. (FC)No.509/2023 is filed by the wife, dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance ordered. For convenience, the parties are referred to as the ‘revision petitioner/husband’ and ‘respondent – wife’.

2. The respondent/wife had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), against the revision petitioner/husband, seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.20,000/-. It was her case that, she was married to the revision petitioner on 16.05.2013. They are issueless. The revision petitioner treated her with matrimonial cruelty. She has no means to maintain herself. The revision petitioner is a construction contractor and has five acres of agricultural land, and he is earning a monthly income of Rs.80,000/-. The respondent has a right to live in the same status and standard of living as that of the revision petitioner. Hence, the application.

3. The revision petitioner had filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He denied the allegation that he was working as a construction contractor. He contended that he was doing some private work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was living in a rental premises by paying Rs.8,000/- per month as rent. The revision petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation with the respondent.

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

4. The respondent had also filed O.P.Nos.326/2018 & 327/2018 against the revision petitioner, for a decree for divorce and a decree for return of money and gold ornaments, respectively. 5. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried the three proceedings. The respondent examined herself and two other witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exts A1 to A9 in evidence. The revision petitioner got himself examined as RW1 and marked Exts B1 to B27 on his side.

6. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application, by ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/-.

7. It is assailing the said order, these revision petitions are filed.

8. Heard; Sri. Kishor B, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and Sri. Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife.

9. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order?

10. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. The respondent’s case in the application was that, the revision petitioner had treated her with matrimonial cruelty and refused to maintain her, despite having a monthly income of Rs.80,000/-.

11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that the respondent was living separately from him without sufficient cause and he was only earning Rs.20,000/- per month from his private work.

12. Even though the revision petitioner contended that the respondent was living separately from him without any sufficient cause, admittedly, he had not taken any earnest effort to resume cohabitation with the respondent. He also did not file any petition seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Similarly, though the respondent contended that the revision petitioner was earning Rs.80,000/- per month, there is nothing on record to prove the said assertion.

13. The Family Court, taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner was only 39 years at the time of filing the application and was an able bodied person ordered him to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent.

14. In the celebrated decision in Rajnesh v.

Neha and Anr. [ 2020 (6) KHC 1 ], the Hon'ble Sup