A spouse's obligation to provide maintenance and fulfill marital duties is crucial for the continuation of a marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Kasaragod in O.P.No.168/2011. The O.P. was filed by the respondent wife seeking dissolution of marriage in terms of the provisions contained in the dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939. By its order dated 27th September, 2012, the Family Court allowed the O.P. and dissolved the marriage invoking grounds under Section 2 (iv), (viii)(d) and (f) of the aforesaid Act. It is aggrieved by this order, the husband has filed this appeal.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who contended that the judgment of the Family Court is illegal for the reason that the evidence adduced by the respondent was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant had failed or neglected to provide maintenance for the wife for a period of two years or that the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations, for a period of three years for the other grounds under Section (viiii) (d) and (f) of Section 2 of the Act.

3. The main finding of the Family Court is regarding the failure of the husband to provide maintenance for the wife for two years and to perform his marital obligations for a period of three years without reasonable cause.

4. Insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the case of the wife was that the marriage between them took place on 25.9.1983 and they lived together for 25 years and that on 15.7.2006, she was left her parental home. Thereafter, the husband did not come or pay any maintenance to her.

5. This contention of the respondent wife was resisted by the appellant contending that he used to visit the wife's house and pay maintenance.

6. Since it was the case of the appellant that he used to make payment of the maintenance due, in essence, what he pleaded was that, he discharged his obligations to maintain the wife. In such a case, the burden was upon him to prove his contention. Apart from his oral assertion, there was no evidence whatsoever to accept this contention of the appellant.

7. It was in such circumstances that the Family Court accepted the case of the wife that husband neglected or failed to provide her maintenance for a period of two years as provided under Section 2 (ii) of the Act. This finding itself also justifies the finding of the Family Court that the husband had failed or neglected to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years as provided under Clause (iv) of of the Act. These findings itself justified the order passed by the Family Court for dissolution of the marriage.

6. In such circumstances, it is unnecessary to examine the correctness of the remaining findings and we sustained the judgment of the Family Court.

The Mat. Appeal will stand dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd