The Kerala High Court upheld an order directing the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance, finding that his physical incapacity did not alter the Family Court’s finding that he had sufficient means to maintain his wife.
Justice G. Girish passed the order on September 30, 2026, while dismissing a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order.
The parties married on August 1, 2015. It was the husband’s second marriage, solemnised pursuant to a matrimonial advertisement published by him in a leading daily. The marriage was admittedly not consummated. The husband had suffered a paralytic stroke on October 29, 2012, and contended that he was physically incapacitated from having a physical relationship and from doing work or earning income.
The husband further claimed that he had placed the matrimonial advertisement with the intention of finding someone who could take care of him and his mother. The marital relationship subsequently broke down, leading to proceedings concerning maintenance, divorce and the return of gold ornaments. The Family Court recorded evidence in all three matters together. The wife’s divorce petition was allowed on the ground of cruelty, while her claim for return of gold ornaments and recovery of money was rejected.
In the maintenance proceedings, the Family Court found that the husband had sufficient means to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife. It also found that the wife did not have sufficient means to maintain herself. The husband challenged that maintenance order before the Kerala High Court, relying on his physical incapacity and a Medical Board certificate showing permanent locomotor disability of 70% in relation to his whole body.
The High Court noted that the medical evidence established the husband’s physical incapacity. However, it found that the Family Court had assessed his financial capacity on the evidence available, including circumstances concerning the expenses of the marriage and his earlier ability to maintain his wife.
The Court observed:
“The physical incapacity of the petitioner as disclosed by the medical records does not assume any relevance, since the finding of the court below about the capability of the petitioner to maintain his wife, is not on the basis of the concept of ‘able bodied person’.”
The High Court also considered the husband’s own version that the matrimonial advertisement was intended to secure someone to care for him and his mother, and held that he could not evade his responsibility to pay maintenance to his wife.
Justice G. Girish found no illegality, impropriety or error in the Family Court’s order requiring payment of ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. The Kerala High Court therefore dismissed the revision petition.
