The requirement for spousal maintenance persists despite claims of financial incapacity, based on the obligation to support.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thalassery, in O.P.No.114/2023, since it has ordered that he return Rs.50,000/- to the respondent; and also to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance from

10.07.2020 to 10.01.2023.

2. Sri.Abhilash K.N – learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that since the entrustment of the amount above mentioned has not been proved, the learned Court could not have issued a decree against his client; while the amount of past maintenance ordered is excessive because his client does not have the financial capacity to honour Rs.4,000/- per month. He explained that his client is a “seasonal worker”, with a very modest income and hence incapacitated from honouring such a high amount as past maintenance. He prayed that this appeal be, therefore, allowed and the decree vacated.

3. Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni - appearing for the respondent on the other hand, argued that the factum of the entrustment of the amount in question has been proved by his client in her pleadings and examination; but which has not been discredited in any manner by the appellant in cross- examination. He argued that, in such circumstances, the learned Family Court has not erred; further adding that the amount of past maintenance awarded to her client is the least that it could have done, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, particularly that his client is a woman of about 40 years in age now. She prayed that this appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

4. Though we have not called for the records from the learned Family Court, copies of all the relevant documents and depositions have been handed over across the bar by the learned Counsel for the parties, with the express consent that they can be relied upon by us in this judgment.

5. The only question relevant for our consideration is whether the entrustment of Rs.50,000/-, as alleged by the respondent at the time of marriage to the appellant, has been proved; and whether she is entitled to past maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. She has, however, not chosen to file an appeal regarding the other claims that have been denied;

and hence we do not intend to speak about it in any manner.

6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the parties as RW1 and PW1 respectively; and Exts.A1 and A2, which are the Marriage Certificate and a Joint Petition before the learned Family Court.

7. It is the specific case of the respondent that at the time of marriage, her mother and relatives had entrusted 7 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/- to the appellant and that he had misappropriated the same. As said above, the learned Family Court did not find in favour of the respondent qua 7 sovereigns of gold, but has found that Rs.50,000/- had been entrusted.

8. When we examine the evidence of PW1, she specifically testified that Rs.50,000/- had been given to the appellant at the time of marriage. Even though she was cross- examined at length, there is no viable attempt made to discredit this part of her testimony and it remains unimpeached. In such circumstances, we cannot find the learned Family Court to have erred in having trusted her testimony to that extent; and hence cannot find in favour of the appellant in this appeal.

9. Coming to the quantum of the past maintenance awarded by the learned Court, namely Rs.4,000/-, it is unnecessary to state that this is the least anyone could have offered to the respondent, who is now nearly 40 years in age. This is merely on par with even the disability and other pensions given by Welfare States to their citizens; and we cannot find the amount to be excessive or unconscionable.

10. The surviving question is whether