2025:KER:26090 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 109 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2013 IN MC NO.61 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: GIRIJA AGED 42 YEARS, W/O ANIL KUMAR, RESIDING WITH KALLIKATTU KESAVAN NAIR, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, KEETHOLY, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TLAUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ANILKUMAR S/O KURIKKASSERY VEETTIL OMANA AMMA, PARAVOOTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N. PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26090 RPFC NO.109 OF 2013 2 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in M. C. No.61/2012 dated 12.02.2013 declining maintenance to the wife. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner and the two children filed a maintenance case against the respondent claiming maintenance. The Family Court rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Monthly maintenance of ₹1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) each was granted to the children. The petitioner challenges the order rejecting her claim for maintenance. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondent. 4. The marriage is admitted. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately. A 2025:KER:26090 RPFC NO.109 OF 2013 3 husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.PC. A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC. It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. (Paul George v. Emarin Paul [2025 KLT OnLine 1524]). 5. According to the petitioner, there is sufficient reason for her to live separately. In the petition, the petitioner has clearly pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the respondent and the respondent has also misappropriated her gold ornaments. In the evidence, she has reiterated the same. She has further stated that on 05.09.2022, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home by the respondent. There is 2025:KER:26090 RPFC NO.109 OF 2013 4 no effective cross examination to the said evidence given by the petitioner. The petitioner has offered sufficient reason for living apart. Therefore, the finding of the Family Court that she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent cannot be sustained. 6. The petitioner has contended that the respondent is working as a driver and getting monthly income of ₹15,000/-. The respondent has admitted that he is a driver by profession. However, according to him, he gets only ₹4,000/- per month. Considering the requirements of the petitioner and the means of the respondent, the respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) to the petitioner from the date of the petition. The Revision Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR