Wife’s Maintenance cannot be escaped by pointing to the husband’s physical disability once the Family Court has found that he can afford to pay, the Kerala High Court has held.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: Dismissing a husband’s revision petition against a Family Court order to pay his wife maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month, the Kerala High Court has held that a physical disability does not remove his liability when he has sufficient means [A v. D].
The revision petition against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, in M.C. No. 137 of 2019, was heard by Justice G. Girish.
Disability pleaded, means found
To resist the claim, the husband relied on medical evidence of his disability. The High Court pointed out that the Family Court had decided the maintenance question on his financial capacity, not on any assumption that he is able-bodied. His physical incapacity, it followed, had no bearing on the award.
The court below found that the petitioner herein was having sufficient means to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent.
A marriage that began with an advertisement
The couple married on August 1, 2015, following a matrimonial advertisement. According to the husband, the advertisement had been placed to find household help and not a spouse. The marriage was not consummated. He had suffered a paralytic stroke in 2012, which left him with a permanent locomotor disability of 70 per cent. When the relationship broke down, proceedings for maintenance, divorce and return of gold ornaments followed before the Family Court, which granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and awarded the wife maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month.
No ground to interfere
Since the Family Court’s conclusion that the husband has sufficient means disclosed no error, the High Court held as follows.
Thus, there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned order of the court below warranting the interference of this Court in revision.
The revision petition stands dismissed and the maintenance order of Rs 10,000 per month is upheld.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling shows that, in a maintenance dispute, the court looks at what the husband can afford and not only at whether he is physically able to earn. Where the trial court has found that a husband has means and has concealed income, a plea of disability will not by itself displace that finding in revision.
Case Title: A v. D [RPFC No. 122 of 2024]
Bench: Justice G. Girish, Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner: Advocates K. Saneesh Kumar and V.B. Santhini. For the respondent: Advocates Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Anil D. Kartha, Suresh G, Sharath Eldo Philip, Sreekumar G and Ananthasankar A. Kartha.