IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 RPFC.No. 178 of 2010() ---------------------------------- MC.NO.466/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... PEITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- VINOD, AGED 31, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY BEACH ROAD, A.K.G.NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SHAJI SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- ARUANA, AGED 30, D/O.RAMU, KILIYADAN HOUSE, MANALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts RPFC.NO.178/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2010 IN M.C.NO.446 OF 2006 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.178 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against an order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Thrissur in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). The respondent in that proceeding, hereinafter referred to as the husband, who was directed to pay maintenance to the claimant, admittedly, his wife, at the rate of `.1,000/- per month, has filed this revision. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order passed by the court below is assailed by the husband. 2. The learned counsel for the husband contended that the order passed by the court below suffers from serious infirmity in asmuchas it is based on mere surmises and conjectures and that too without entering definite findings on the materials placed before the court. The husband is a deaf and dumb person and he has no vocation is the submission of the counsel to contend that the court below has not appreciated the objections raised by him disputing the claim of the wife. Going through the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, it is seen, the wife claimed maintenance from her husband alleging lack of means and neglect by the husband to maintain her. She is forced to live separately from him on account of R.P(F.C) No.178 OF 2010 2 the cruelty inflicted by the husband and his relatives, was also pleaded as a justifiable ground to live separately and claim maintenance from the husband. Resisting her claim, the husband imputed unchastity on the wife contending that she was caught redhanded while having an illicit relationship with another. Setting forth such imputation against the wife, he also disputed his liability to maintain the wife pleading that he is a deaf and dumb person, but, with an offer to maintain her provided she is prepared to cohabitate and fulfill her marital obligations. 3. On the materials placed in the case, which included Annexure A1 F.I.R, a crime registered imputing cruelty against the wife by the husband and his relatives, constituting an offence under Section 498(A) of the Penal Code, the Judge, Family Court concluded that her case that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives and, thus, had justifiable reason to live separately and claim maintenance has been made out in the case. The husband was found to be employed as a tailor, accepting the assertion thereof by the wife and as shown by the entry contained in the marriage certificate, Annexure A5, whereunder his vocation has been as a tailor. Fixing his monthly income as a tailor as between `.4,000/- and `.5,000/- the court below directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of `.1,000/- to the wife. Correctness of that R.P(F.C) No.178 OF 2010 3 order is impeached by the husband. 4. Solitary instance of the wife having had an illicit relationship with another, at the most would show her to be unchaste, but, that would not constitute a ground to deny her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code since a licentious life by the wife as her 'living in adultery' is necessary to disentitle her claim. Leaving that apart, the offer made by the husband with reference to the above imputation against the chastity of the wife would demonstrate that it was not at all bonafide. Even assuming that the imputation has any semblance of truth where the husband has made an offer, the aforesaid imputation could not be pressed into service by him as it amounted to condonation of whatever lapses in the conduct of the wife. An imputation over the character of the wife that she is unchaste, to resist her claim, if it was not supported by convincing material and established in the case, would amount an unwanton cruelty on the wife. That alone is sufficient to justify the wife to live separately from the husband and claim maintenance. So much so, in the given facts of the case, where she has proved her lack of means and also neglect from the part of the husband, who is possessed of means, allowing of her claim for maintenance is unassailable. The husband has contended that he is a deaf and dumb person, which no doubt is not sufficient to show that he is R.P(F.C) No.178 OF 2010 4 incapable of earning for himself and also of discharging the statutory liability cast upon him to take care of his wife providing her necessary assistance for her livelihood. In the marriage certificate his vocation has been shown as a tailor, at a point of time when no dispute arose between the spouses, has much significance over the disputed question whether he is employed or not. The court below was fully justified in forming a conclusion placing reliance on the entry so made in the marriage certificate and also the assertions of the wife to conclude that he is a tailor. No documentary evidence to prove his employment as such need be insisted upon in a case of this nature where a summary trial alone is contemplated, as the laudable objective behind the provision covered under Section 125 of the Code is to avoid vagrancy and to provide succor to the destitutes. I do not find any infirmity in the assessment made by the court below as regards the income potentiality of the husband and the awarding of a sum of `.1,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance from him. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge