A wife can claim maintenance despite living separately if valid reasons exist, such as a husband's second marriage.

ORDER

These revision petitions are connected and are disposed of by a common order.

2. R.P (F.C) No.398 of 2018 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, in M.C.No.89 of 2016. R.P (F.C) No.366 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, in M.C.No.203 of 2023.

3. M.C. No.89 of 2016 has been filed by the wife, Fathima, against her husband, Muhammed Vappinu. The Family Court, after trial, granted maintenance to the wife @Rs. 5,000/- per month as per the order dated 03.04.2018. The said order is under challenge in R.P. (F.C.) No. 398 of 2018.

4. M.C. No.203 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent in M.C.No.89 of 2016, Muhammed Vappinu, against his son, Vasif Muhammed. The Family Court dismissed the case as per the order dated 29.05.2024. The said order is under challenge in R.P. (F.C.) No. 366 of 2024.

5. I have heard Sri.Jagadeesh K, the learned counsel for the husband, Sri.K.N.Abhilash, the learned counsel for the wife and the son.

6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in M.C.No.89 of 2016 took place on 20.04.1983. Three children were born in the wedlock: Vasif Muhammed, who is the respondent in M.C.No.203 of 2023 and Faseela and Fahima. Admittedly, the husband and the wife have been living separately since 2015. The son resides with the wife. It is also not in dispute that the husband contracted a second marriage and lives with her.

7. The learned counsel for the husband submitted that the husband is jobless and has no means to provide maintenance to the wife; on the other hand, the wife is running a beauty parlour and earning her livelihood out of it. The learned counsel further submitted that the son provides maintenance to the wife; hence, the claim for maintenance against the husband is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel also submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the wife left the company of the husband without any sufficient reason in 2015, and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. The husband has also taken up the contention that he has to maintain his second wife. The learned counsel for the wife and son, on the other hand, supported the findings in the impugned orders.

8. The wife has taken a definite contention that she does not have any job or source of income to maintain herself, and her husband has sufficient means to maintain her. Even though the husband contended that the wife is running a beauty parlour, absolutely no evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The husband had admittedly worked in the Gulf for a pretty long period of more than 40 years. A person who had worked in the Gulf for such a long period would, no doubt, have sufficient savings.

9. It is the case of the husband that, after returning from the Gulf, he is jobless and thus has no means to maintain his wife. As stated already, it is an admitted fact that the husband has contracted a second marriage and lives with her. According to him, he was thrown out of his home by his first wife and children, had to seek shelter in a lodging house, and that was the reason for his second marriage. Whatever the reason may be for the second marriage, the fact remains that the husband is maintaining his second wife.

10. A Muslim husband does not have a vested right to have more than one wife. Monogamy is the rule and polygamy is an exception under Muslim law. Polygamy for men is allowed under Muslim law only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, that too, under the strict injunction that all the wives must be treated equally and equitably. The capacity to do justice between co-wives is a c