70% Disability Can't Excuse Maintenance: Kerala HC Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Payment To Wife

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a husband's revision petition against an order directing him to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. 

The court held that his physical incapacity after a paralytic stroke was irrelevant because the Family Court had found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that he had the means to pay but was concealing his income. It added that a man who contracted the marriage knowing he could not perform his conjugal obligations cannot evade his responsibility to maintain the wife.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Girish was hearing the revision petition (RPFC No. 122 of 2024) against the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor's judgment dated 14.11.2023 in M.C. No. 137 of 2019. It had directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month.

The parties married on 01.08.2015, which was the husband's second marriage and was arranged through a matrimonial advertisement he placed in a daily. The marriage was admittedly not consummated. The husband said he had suffered a paralytic stroke on 29.10.2012 and could not have a physical relationship, and that he advertised only to get a maid to care for him and his mother. The relationship collapsed, and the wife filed cases for maintenance, divorce and return of gold ornaments. The Family Court recorded evidence in all three jointly, allowed her divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and rejected her claim for ornaments and money.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court ignored clinching evidence that he is physically unable to work or earn. Besides medical records, he relied on a certificate from a Medical Board, constituted on the direction of a Division Bench in Mat. Appeal No. 494/2024, stating that he has a permanent locomotor disability of 70% of the whole body.

The court accepted that the medical evidence discloses the incapacity caused by the stroke. It held, however, that this does not assume any relevance, because the Family Court's finding was not based on the concept of an "able bodied person". The Family Court had analysed the evidence on a preponderance of probabilities and concluded that the husband had sufficient means but was not disclosing them. It drew this from his own contention that he and his mother had met the marriage expenses, and from his claim that he had maintained the wife while she lived with him. The Family Court also found that the wife has no means to maintain herself.

The Bench then remarked on the husband's own version. By his account, he used deceitful tactics of placing a matrimonial advertisement for the ostensible purpose of getting a servant, and succeeded in contracting a marriage with full knowledge that he could not perform his conjugal obligations. After spoiling the life of a lady by resorting to such a dubious method, the husband cannot evade his responsibility to pay maintenance.

Finding no illegality, impropriety or error in the Family Court's order warranting interference in revision, the court held the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.

Appearances:

For the Revision Petitioner (husband): Mr. K. Saneesh Kumar and Ms. V.B. Santhini, Advocates.

For the Respondent (wife): Mr. Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Mr. Anil D. Kartha, Mr. Suresh G., Mr. Sharath Eldo Philip, Mr. Sreekumar G. and Mr. Ananthasankar A. Kartha, Advocates.

Case Title: Husband vs. Wife, RPFC No. 122 of 2024 [2026:KER:74921]