Husbands must provide maintenance to wives living separately if justified, ensuring they do not live in destitution; courts uphold dignity and necessity of support.

ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the order dated

11.04.2017 in MC No.192/2016 of Family Court, Thalassery. The respondents approached the Family Court with an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per the above order, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st respondent and Rs.3,000/- each to respondents 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive. The counsel also submitted that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason and she is not entitled maintenance. The counsel further submitted that the Family Court ought to have rejected the application of the 1^st respondent as she is living separately without any sufficient reason. The counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that, after considering the entire aspects, the Family Court passed the above order.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. This Court perused the impugned order and the available records. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Family Court considered the matter in detail. The Family Court found that the 1^st respondent is living separately for sufficient reason. It will be better to extract paragraph 8 of the impugned order:

“8. It was on 28.04.2010, the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and respondent was solemnized. Her specific case is that the respondent has not properly maintained her and the children. It was for the delivery of the 4^th petitioner she was taken to her parents house, but after the delivery she was not taken back to the matrimonial home, according to her. But at the same time the respondent's case is that she who has gone to her parents house never returned and was not prepared for a reunion in spite of mediation talk held at the instance of the well-

wishers and relatives. When examined as PW1, the 1^st petitioner also stated that it was her mother-in-law who took her to her house and thereafter she had not returned to the respondent's house. But her case is that after delivery of the 4^th petitioner the respondent and his relatives did not visit her nor did they take her to her matrimonial home. She also put forward a case that the respondent has married again a lady hailing from Malappuram and hence she is not prepared to go with him. She also stated that while residing together, the respondent and his relatives harassed her. The above said are the reasons put forward by her to remain there at her parents house. The respondent has not examined any one of the persons who was in the mediation talk to prove that any attempt was taken by him to take his wife back. He has not sent any notice asking her to come and reside with him. His only case is that he has directly asked her and through mediators also to reside with him, a case which is supported my no materials. So the above said evidence is so sufficient to hold that it is with justifiable reason the 1st petitioner is residing away from the respondent.”

5. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding.

As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the amount awarded is only Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the children.

6. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455] , the Apex Court held as follows:

3. Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial h