The Kerala High Court recently upheld a family court order directing a man who had suffered a paralytic stroke to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his ex-wife, rejecting his defence that there were no marital relations between them and that he had married her to get a maid servant.

Justice G Girish also sharply criticised the man's claim that he had married only because he wanted a maid who would take care of him and his mother.

"Even as per the version of the petitioner (husband), he had adopted the deceitful tactics of making a matrimonial advertisement for the ostensible purpose of getting a servant, and succeeded in contracting a marriage with the respondent (wife) with the full knowledge that he is incapable of performing his conjugal obligations to his wife. After spoiling the life of a lady by resorting to such a dubious method, the petitioner cannot evade from his responsibility to make payment of maintenance to the respondent," the Court said.

The couple had married in August 2015 after the man placed a matrimonial advertisement in a leading newspaper. It was his second marriage and the marriage was not consummated.

According to the husband, he had suffered a paralytic stroke in October 2012 which left him incapable of having a physical relationship. He claimed that he had placed the advertisement only to find a maid who could take care of him and his mother.

The marital relationship subsequently broke down and the wife initiated divorce proceedings. She also sought maintenance and the return of her gold ornaments.

A family court at Ettumanoor granted her divorce on the ground of cruelty, although it rejected her claim for return of gold ornaments. It also held that the husband had sufficient means to pay his ex-wife ₹10,000 per month as maintenance.

The husband challenged the maintenance order before the High Court, contending that the family court had failed to properly consider his physical condition.

His relied on the medical records indicating that he had 70 per cent permanent locomotor disability, to argue that he was unable to work or earn money and, therefore, could not afford to pay maintenance.

The High Court, however, observed that this did not affect the family court's finding that he had sufficient resources to maintain his wife.

It observed that the family court arrived at that finding after taking into account the husband's own claims that he and his mother had borne the expenses of the marriage and that he financially supported his wife while she lived with him.

The High Court also noted that the wife did not have the means to maintain herself.

The Court added that the husband's ability to pay maintenance was not based on whether he was an able-bodied person. Rather, the family court had accessed the overall circumstances and come to a conclusion that the husband had sufficient means to pay maintenance, but was concealing his income to avoid doing so.

Finding no illegality or error in the family court's decision, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the husband's petition and confirmed the monthly maintenance awarded to the wife.

Advocates K Saneesh Kumar and VB Santhi appeared for the husband.

Advocates Ananthakrishnan A Kartha, Anil D Kartha, Suresh G, Sharath Eldo Philip, Sreekumar G and Ananthasankar A Kartha represented the wife.

[Read Order]