ORDER

(Dated: 14th June, 2022)

The 1st petitioner/wife in M.C.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha who was denied maintenance by the Family Court has filed this petition.

2. The respondent was the 1st respondent before the Family Court. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 27.03.2006 at the residence of the 1st petitioner at Thrikkalathoor, Muvattupuzha. A daughter born in the wedlock on 29.05.2011. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent resided together in the house of the respondent. From the very beginning of the marital life, the respondent ill-treated the petitioner. Due to continuous mental torture, the 1st child of the petitioner died immediately after birth. Though the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent were settled amicably, the respondent again started torturing, hence on 08.02.2015, the petitioner's parents brought back her from the matrimonial home. The petitioner and the respondent are living separately and the respondent is not maintaining the petitioner and the child, who is residing with the petitioner, hence she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively by filing M.C before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. She has no other income to maintain herself and the child and the respondent being a goldsmith is earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. The respondent filed objection contending that the 1st petitioner has left the matrimonial home on 08.02.2015 with the child accompanying her parents, on her own volition. Thereafter, the petitioner has not returned back. The respondent is not working as a goldsmith now and the amount claimed is exorbitant. He is now working as an assistant of an electrician, and earning a meager income. The 1st petitioner is a qualified computer operator and she is earning. The respondent is ready to maintain the petitioners, if they live with the respondent in his residence.

4. The evidence consisted of oral evidence of PWs

1 to 3 and RW1. On the side of the petitioners Exts.A1 and A2 series were marked and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the respondent's side. The Family Court tried this case along with O.P.No.291 of 2015 and passed an order directing the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- each per month to the 2nd petitioner/child alone and denied maintenance to the 1st petitioner/wife. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to the 1st petitioner, this revision is filed.

5. Since 08.02.2015, the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately. It is true that no specific reason is stated in the petition for separate residence. The contention of the respondent/husband is that, without justifiable reason, the 1st petitioner has left him and living separately with the child. Though a specific question was asked in the cross examination of PW1 that she is living separately without any justifiable reason she denied the same. PW2 is the mother of the 1st petitioner. When she was examined, she submitted that the 1st child died immediately after delivery due to the harassment meted out by the respondent and her in-laws. The respondent was examined as RW1. His specific contention is that, he knows the work of making gold ornaments. He denied the fact that he is well versed in wiring jobs, but admitted that he used to go along with electricians. His further case is that, since he has got the problem with 'hernia' is not able to go for jobs. When PW1 was examined, she submitted that the respondent used to make quarrel with her for various reasons and she was harassed mentally also. In cross examination, she deposed that on 08.02.2015, she has left the matrimonial home and before that she has filed a complaint before the Erattupetta Police regarding the ill-treatment. In a mediation conducted at the police station, she again started to live with the respondent. The main allegation in the police complaint is that, the mother of the respondent has assaulted her.

6. Ext.B1 is a piece of pa