A spouse obligated to pay alimony must substantiate claims of incapacity; failure to do so results in adverse conclusions on alimony requirements.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran,J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of the learned Family Court, Ettumanoor, which has obligated him to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as alimony pendente lite to the respondent. 2. Interestingly, it is the petitioner who filed the Original Petition seeking divorce from the respondent; and he says that he has no income to pay any alimony. He filed Ext.P8 objections to the application filed by the respondent seeking interim alimony, to the effect that, even though his mother is running a medical shop and he being the owner of certain properties, he is not earning anything from it; and that his only source of income is through his profession as a driver, from which, he says he earns only Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. The counsel for the respondent –

Sri.Stanly Kurian, however, submitted that the above assertions of the petitioner are unsubstantiated and that he is a man of 45 years in age, fully able and capable of earning. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shamshad.C v. Shafeena.K [ 2025(1)KLT 380 ] to argue that, when it comes to the most exiguous amounts required for a wife to sustain, a case of impecuniousness cannot be impelled by an able bodied husband with capacity to earn. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. We have examined the impugned order of the learned Family Court and notice that it has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as alimony pendente lite to the respondent. True, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 objection to Ext.P7 application filed by the respondent seeking the afore plea, averring that the house and the property in which he is staying belongs to his mother and that it is she who is running a medical shop, from which, he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. He then asserts that he is not receiving any amount from his mother, though he admits that all the household expenses are being met by her. He then added that he is earning only Rs.3,000/- per month, working as a driver, which takes care of his personal expenses. 5. The learned Family Court, in our firm view, has found correctly that since the petitioner has not produced any document, or filed any affidavit disclosing his income or his assets and liabilities, his version cannot inspire any confidence.

6. In such perspective, one can never find fault with the learned Family Court in having ordered payment of alimony pendente lite - to a rather exiguous sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which construes to less than a few thousand per month, during the period when the Original Petition has been pending.

7. As we have said above, it is the petitioner who filed the original petition seeking divorce – in fact, he admits that he had filed three other petitions for this purpose - and therefore, it becomes his obligation to answer a claim for maintenance and alimony pendente lite cogently. However, the manner in which he has refuted the assertions of the respondent is by filing an objection containing an omnibus traverse; but adding that he is earning only Rs.3,000/- per month, which is unbelievable for a person who is able bodied and with a capacity to earn much more in a State like Kerala, where the normal per diem remuneration is Rs.1,000/- or more.

In the afore circumstances, we find no error in the order issued by the learned Family Court and therefore, dismiss this Original Petition.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-