A wife may lose entitlement to maintenance if she separates without justifiable reasons, particularly when her husband is willing to provide for her.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

11.12.2018 in M.C. No.384/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad. As per the impugned order, the Family Court rejected maintenance to the 1^st petitioner and granted maintenance to the 2^nd petitioner @ Rs.4,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to the 1^st petitioner and the quantum of the maintenance granted to the 2^nd petitioner, this Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. This Court perused the impugned order and the available records. The Family Court considered the matter in detail and thereafter found that the 1^st petitioner is not entitled maintenance. It will be better to extract Paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment:

“8. The 1^st Petitioner agreed for her marriage with the Counter Petitioner knowing very well that his parents are alive and he is residing with them. The 1^st Petitioner is unwilling to reside in the Counter Petitioner's house wherein his parents are residing whereas she is ready and willing to stay with him in anywhere other than the matrimonial home without his parents. The 1^st Petitioner who expressed her unwillingness to stay at the Counter Petitioner's matrimonial home where his parents are also residing has failed to establish any justifiable reason to avoid the presence of the Counter Petitioner's parents wherein she is residing along with the Counter Petitioner and their child. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 (SC) 2937 that apprehension of torture at the matrimonial home is a justifiable ground for the wife's separated residence. It is pertinent to be noted that the husband involved in the decision referred to above was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC for torture demanding more dowry. The statement of PW1, the 1^st Petitioner that she is ready and willing to stay with the Counter Petitioner, her husband in a house other than the matrimonial home wherein his parents are also residing would show that she is not apprehending any sort of torture or danger from the part of the Counter Petitioner in case of her residence with him. That being the position with regard to the 1^st Petitioner's refusal to stay at the matrimonial home, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above on which the learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance is in no way justifying the 1^st Petitioner's claim for maintenance from the Counter Petitioner while leading a separated life without any justifiable reason. In the above circumstance the 1^st Petitioner's separated residence from the Counter Petitioner; her husband and her unwillingness to join with him despite the expression of his readiness and willingness to take her and the child with him and provide for their maintenance is prompting me to conclude that her separated residence from the Counter Petitioner is without any justifiable reason. A wife who is leading a separated life from her husband without any justifiable reason is not entitled to be maintained by him and the position being so the 1^st Petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance from the Counter Petitioner.”

4. When the 1^st petitioner and the respondent are leading a matrimonial life, the respondent has to look after his parents also. The 1^st petitioner can not take such an adamant stand. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order as far as the rejection of maintenance to the 1^st petitioner is concerned. But, as far as t