IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 962 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.898/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ SREEJITH GIREESH.P.G, S/O.P.S.GIREESH, 'THAVASREE', EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-11, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.MAITHRI SRIKANT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- REEBA, D/O.T.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, THUPPAYICHOTTIL HOUSE, CHIRAMANGALAM, PARAPPANANGADI.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 962 of 2009-F ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal is directed against an order obliging the appellant/husband to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. The husband had claimed divorce under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the alleged ground that the wife has mental abnormality. Separate residence is also conceded. The appellant admittedly is an Advocate having 15 years standing. There is no contention that the wife has any other employment or income earning activity. It is, in these circumstances, that the wife claimed maintenance from the appellant. Past and future maintenance was claimed. Mat. Appeal No. 962 of 2009 -: 2 :- 3. Parties went to trial on thee contentions. The O.P. was disposed of along with another O.P. for divorce filed by the husband. O.P. for divorce was dismissed. The petition for payment of past and future maintenance was allowed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. We have already admitted an appeal against the rejection of the claim for divorce. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the order directing payment of past and future maintenance. 4. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned order, two contentions are raised. First of all, it is contended that there is no valid reason for the wife to reside separately. Secondly, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. No other contentions are raised. 5. Less said about the first contention, the better. Admittedly, the husband does not offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. On the contrary, he raises a very serious allegation that the wife is mentally unsound and that he is entitled to decree for divorce on that ground. The husband having raised such a contention, the wife is certainly not liable to reside along with the appellant/husband. At any Mat. Appeal No. 962 of 2009 -: 3 :- rate under Sec.18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the wife is justified in residing separately by virtue of Clause (8). We find the contention to be idle and puerile. 6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, we have already noted that there is no material to show that the wife is employed or has any source of income. The husband admittedly is an Advocate of 15 years standing. The award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem is found to be eminently reasonable. At any rate, the challenge at the instance of the husband does not appear to be reasonable at all. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not, at any rate, warrant interference by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Sec.19 of the F.C. Act at the instance of the appellant herein. 8. This Mat. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge