The Kerala High Court recently directed a laborer to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance for his paralyzed wife and son. The Court passed the said direction noting that the laborer had been neglecting his wife and refusing to take care of the child.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice VG Arun observed that in such cases, the court must be cognizant of the prime objective of Section 125 CrPC, which stipulates maintenance, which is to ensure that the neglected wife, children And parents should not be left in a 'state of distress, destitution and starvation'.
"The court must also be satisfied of the existence of the following factors; i) that the defendant has neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. (ii) that the claimant has no means of maintaining himself (iii) that the defendant has sufficient means to maintain the claimant."
Brief Facts:
The first petitioner married the first respondent on 12/9/2010, and their child was born on 1/9/2011. After the birth, the first petitioner had to care for her sick mother-in-law. However, she became ill and was taken home on 21/10/2012. She was later diagnosed with Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) at Amrutha Hospital, which left her paralyzed from the waist down. She was in a coma for almost three months and needed ventilator support for two more months. The hospital bill totaled Rs. 29 Lakhs, with a discount of Rs. 9 Lakhs due to her situation. As the family lacked funds and the respondent didn't provide financial support, the public formed a committee and crowdfunded a substantial amount to cover the bill.
The respondent denied allegations of withholding financial support, claiming that he was kept away by his in-laws once they received contributions. He argued that his wages were insufficient for his own needs and filed a divorce petition, citing the first petitioner's illness as a reason for her inability to fulfill wifely duties, constituting cruelty. The divorce petition was dismissed, and a maintenance order of Rs. 4,000/- for the wife and Rs. 2,000/- for the son was granted. Two revision petitions have been filed in this case: one by the wife and son disputing the maintenance amount, and the other by the husband challenging his liability for maintenance.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Adv. M. Shajna, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the maintenance amount ordered was insufficient, considering the first petitioner's medical condition and the needs of the second petitioner. It was further contended that the lower court made a serious error in setting the maintenance at Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, based on the assumption that the respondent has no means to pay the requested amount. However, the respondent is employed as a head load worker/packer in a private establishment and earns additional income through overtime work, which was not taken into account.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Advocates T.R. Hari Krishnan and S. Sreedevi, representing the respondent, stated that the respondent had taken care of the petitioner during her hospitalization and that disagreements only arose after substantial funds were received for her treatment. They argued that despite acknowledging the respondent's limited resources, the Family Court still ordered maintenance at Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, imposing an impossible obligation on him.
Observations by the Court:
The Court referred to this case involving a helpless paralyzed woman driven to homelessness by her neglectful husband and was also concerned about an innocent boy affected by his mother's illness and father's neglect. The respondent's own testimony confirmed the neglect. The Court determined that the petitioners lacked means to support themselves and dismissed the respondent's claim of insufficient funds. Referring to a previous case, the Court decided that the maintenance allowance should cover the first petitioner's medical expenses and help her lead a normal life. For the child, the Court acknowledged the importance of love and affection and recognized that monetary compensation couldn't fully make up for its absence.
As a result, the Court increased the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.8,000/- for the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- for the second petitioner. The respondent had two months to pay the outstanding arrears at the new rate. Failure to comply would lead to the petitioners seeking execution of the order from the Family Court.
Decision of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed.
Case Name: Dheera N.G. & Anr. v. Simesh S. and Simesh S. v. Dheeran N.G. & Anr.
Coram: Justice V.G. Arun
Case No.: RP(FC)Nos.30&71/2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Advocates M. Shajna and K.M. Firoz
Advocates of the Respondent: Advocates T.R. Hari Krishnan and S. Sreedevi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
