The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and children is of paramount importance, and inadequate provision can be contested in Family Court.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree of Family Court, Kannur in O.P.No.1110/2022, which declined appellant’s claim for past maintenance.

2. 1^st Appellant is the wife and the 2^nd appellant is the minor child of the respondent. Respondent married the 1^st appellant on 12.11.2020. The case of the 1^st appellant is that while residing in the matrimonial home, respondents subjected her to cruelty and therefore, she left to her parental home during her pregnancy period and thereafter she is residing with her parents. After the delivery of the child, she continues her residence in the parental home. It was contended by her that respondent totally neglected her from January, 2021 onwards. It is her case that she has no job, income or means of her own and she and her child are under the mercy of her parents for food, clothing and basic needs. Respondent who has enough means and income, has not provided any maintenance to them, though he is earning an income of ₹3 lakhs per month. Hence 1^st appellant sought past maintenance for the period from 24.1.2021 to 24.7.2022 at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month and ₹10,000/- per month for the 2^nd appellant from

20.09.2021 to 20.07.2022.

3. Respondent resisted the claim for past maintenance and denied the allegations of cruelty made against him. 1^st appellant left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. She is acting as a puppet in the hands of her father. Prior to the marriage with the respondent, she had married thrice and her attempt is to extract money by harassing her husbands. She has no right to claim maintenance since she willfully abstained from performing her duty as a wife and abandoned the respondent without any reason. The allegations that the respondent is earning ₹3 lakhs per month from his business and landed property are false and untrue. The claim for past maintenance at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month for the 1^st appellant and ₹10,000/- per month to the 2^nd appellant is excessive and exorbitant. Respondent was continuously paying the maintenance amount to the appellants, which covers the amount claimed in the O.P. Hence, he sought the dismissal of O.P.

4. The Family Court tried the O.P for past maintenance along with M.C.No.302/2022 filed by the appellants herein and the evidence was recorded in common. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of 1^st appellant, who was examined as PW1 and the respondent, who was examined as RW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A9 on the side of the appellants and Exts.B1 to B14 on the side of the respondent.

5. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court disallowed appellants claim for past maintenance.

6. Challenging the detainment of the claim for past maintenance, appellants have preferred this appeal contending that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and went wrong in dismissing the claim for past maintenance; that the Family Court ought to have taken note of the fact that the amounts sent by the respondent in the name of the 1^st appellant’s father by way of UPI transaction were towards partial repayment of the amount borrowed by him from her father; that the Family Court ought to have found that 1^st appellant is an unemployed lady who has no means or income to maintain herself and her child; that the Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that respondent who has sufficient money, income and capacity failed to maintain the appellants.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the Family Court and contended that there was no failure on his part to provide maintenance to the appellants and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the dismissal of the claim for past maintenan