A husband's statutory obligation to provide maintenance to his family holds, regardless of employment status.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kannur, in O.P.No.834/2023, since it allowed the plea of respondents for past maintenance to a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the first among them and Rs.3,000/- each to the other two.

2. Sri.Zubair Pulikkool – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Family Court has fixed the quantum of past maintenance without adverting to the factum of his client having no means at all to pay, being without proper employment. He contended that the amount now granted to the respondents is usurious and disproportionate because, the 1^st respondent has an income of her own; while the other two - namely her children, were 17 and 13 years at the relevant time. He prayed that, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside.

3. Sri.A.C.Venugopal – learned counsel for the respondents, countered the afore submissions saying that this is a case where, in fact, it are his clients who are aggrieved since they have been granted an exiguous amount as maintenance. He contended that the amount awarded is not even sufficient for his clients to sustain themselves, much less lead a luxurious life; and hence that they be reserved their rights to approach this Court in future.

4. We must record upfront that, in matters like this, what is relevant is not the capacity or incapacity of the husband to offer maintenance to his wife and children, but his statutory obligation to provide for them, at least to the most necessitous quantum. In Shamshad C. v. Shafeena K. [ 2025 (1) KLT 380 ], this Court has already held that an able bodied man, without any incapacity to work, cannot use the excuse of unemployment to deny the most essential maintenance to his family; and the said declarations apply to this case in its full force.

5. We notice that the learned Family Court had allowed the parties to lead evidence; and the 1^st respondent and the appellant have deposed as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The only evidence on record is Ext.A1 Marriage Certificate, which is without any contest and therefore, does not require to be evaluated any further.

6. As said above, the respondents – through PW1 – testified specifically that they had no other means of livelihood and that they require Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance from the appellant. The contra case of the appellant – as deposed by him as RW1, was that he has no financial resources, nor any employment, to honour a sum as large as Rs.10,000/- each; and he further went on to say that he is not liable to make any payment as maintenance, though without substantiating it in any manner whatsoever.

7. We have no doubt that the obligation of the appellant to pay maintenance to his wife and children remain without any requirement for evaluation, since he is enjoined statutorily to do so. Pertinently, even though the appellant testified as RW1, he produced no documents to prove either his lack of employment or lack of resources to honour maintenance to the respondents; but, in fact, admitted that he has agricultural income and that he is the owner of 86 cents of property and house. He further conceded that he had purchased a property of 6½ cents, spending Rs.6 Lakhs, but explained that this was done using the income of his mother, who is 80 years.

8. It is unnecessary for us to expatiate that, when the ordered maintenance is so small that it can only take care of the most essential requirements of the respondents, a further enquiry as to the earning capacity or financial resources of the appellant becomes necessary in view of Shamshad (supra). As far as this case is concerned, the respondents wanted Rs.10,000/- each, but the learned Family Court has granted only