A husband has an obligation to maintain his wife despite allegations of desertion, especially when backed by proof of mistreatment.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

We are considering these two matters together because the constitutive facts are common and the parties are common.

2. The afore appeal and revision petition have been filed by Sri.C.Babu, who is the husband of the respondent. The latter filed MC No.45/2023, claiming future maintenance from Sri.Babu, on the assertion that she had been thrown away from the matrimonial home and does not have the resources to maintain herself; and she also filed OP No.214/2023 seeking past maintenance on the afore grounds, for a period of three years prior to its filing.

3. The learned Family Court took the matters to trial and allowed both in part, thus directing the appellant/revision petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as past maintenance for a period of three years prior to the filing of OP No.214/2023; and a further sum of Rs.5000/- as future maintenance thereafter. The appellant challenges the above judgment of the learned Family Court on various grounds.

4. Sri.Renjith Kumar V. – learned counsel for the appellant/revision petitioner argued that his client is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent because she had deserted him without cause and is employed as a Hostel Warden, thus having enough resources for herself. He then submitted that his client has established through his evidence that he lacks sufficient income to pay the ordered maintenance; and therefore, that the learned Family Court has erred in having issued its directions against him.

5. In response, Smt.Deepa Narayanan - learned counsel for the respondent, argued that both the afore assertions are untenable and factually wrong, since the appellant is a man of substantial means, working as a building contractor. She pointed out that, though the appellant/revision petitioner has insinuated that her client was working as a Hostel Warden, he has not been able to prove it in any manner, particularly when she had contested it vehemently, both in her pleadings and affidavits.

6. Smt.Deepa Narayanan, thereafter, argued that the allegation, that her client had deserted the appellant/revision petitioner, has also been found to be untrue by the learned Family Court and justifiably so because she had been subjected to great torture, which she has been able to prove through Ext.A2 Medical Certificate and the testimony of the doctor who issued it. She prayed that, therefore, the afore appeal and petition be dismissed.

7. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Family Court in both these cases and see that it had allowed the parties to go to trial, with the appellant/revision petitioner testifying as RW1 and having cited two other witnesses to speak on his behalf as RW2 and RW3. The respondent herein deposed as PW1 and got PW2 - the doctor who issued Ext.A2, to speak about its veracity. In addition, the respondent produced and marked Exts.A1 to A4 on her side; while, the appellant/revision petitioner produced Exts.B1 to B10 in corroboration of his claim.

8. The only issues we are enjoined to consider in these matters is whether the appellant/revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent, when, admittedly, they continue as husband and wife; and if the amount ordered is excessive or unjustified.

9. On the first of the afore limbs, the specific argument of the appellant/revision petitioner is that the respondent had deserted him without cause and hence that he is not liable to pay any maintenance to her. However, the learned Family Court has noticed that it is the specific case of the respondent that she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the appellant and that she had to flee