A wife may claim maintenance despite separation if valid grounds such as cruelty exist, as per Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.

O R D E R

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery in M.C.No.78/2013 dated 20.04.2015.

2. The status of the parties is shown as in M.C before the Family Court. The 1^st petitioner is the wife and the 2^nd petitioner is the child of the counter petitioner. The petitioners filed the maintenance case against the counter petitioner claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each per month. The counter petitioner took a contention that the 1^st petitioner left the matrimonial home without any reason and she was living separately and hence, she was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C . The Family Court accepted the said contention and declined maintenance to the 1^st petitioner. However, the Family Court granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the order of the Family Court declining the maintenance to the 1^st petitioner, the petitioners preferred RPFC No.2 of 2016. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 2^nd petitioner, the counter petitioner filed RPFC No.174 of 2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No.174 of 2015 and the respondent in RPFC No.2 of 2016 is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in RPFC No.2 of 2016 and the respondents in RPFC No.174 of 2015. I have also perused the records.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the 1^st petitioner left the company of the counter petitioner and she was living separately. According to her, she was justified by a valid reason to live separately. It is specifically contended that she was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the counter petitioner and that was why she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately. The said case set up by the 1^st petitioner was denied by the counter petitioner.

5. A husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband who has sufficient means, is not absolute. A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintainance under Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C . It is crucial to assess whether the wife's decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance. [ Paul George v. Emarin Paul ( 2025 KLT OnLine 1524 ) ] Thus, the crucial question is whether there is any evidence on record for the 1^st petitioner to live apart from the counter petitioner.

6. In the petition for maintenance itself, the 1^st petitioner has clearly pleaded that after the marriage, the counter petitioner and his family members treated her with cruelty and refused to provide maintenance. In her evidence, she has categorically deposed that she was ill-treated by the counter petitioner and her in-laws. It is specifically stated that because of the cruelty of the counter petitioner's family members, she could not live with them and so, she left the matrimonial home and is depending upon her parents. She has also deposed that ill-treatment by the counter petitioner and her in-laws resulted in abortion two times. However, the Family Court did not accept this evidence let in by the 1^st petitioner for the reason that the 1^st petitioner did not specifically state each and every aspect of cruelty or harassment meted out to her at the hands of the counter petitioner. I cannot accept the said finding of the Family Court. The 1^st petitioner entered into the box and clearly stated that she was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the counter petitioner. Even though she was cross-examined in length nothing tangible cou