The Kerala High Court has upheld an order directing a disabled man to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his former wife, despite his claim that he had entered into the marriage after publishing a matrimonial advertisement to find a woman who could serve as a maid and look after him and his mother.
Justice G. Girish found no legal error in the Family Court’s decision that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay the maintenance. The High Court also rejected his contention that his physical disability prevented him from meeting the maintenance obligation.
Background
The couple married on August 1, 2015. It was the petitioner’s second marriage and had taken place after he published a matrimonial advertisement in a leading newspaper. The judgment records that the marriage was not consummated.
The petitioner stated that he had suffered a paralytic stroke on October 29, 2012, which left him physically incapable of having a physical relationship. He further claimed that the matrimonial advertisement had been made only with the intention of finding a woman who could serve as a maid and look after him and his mother.
The relationship subsequently broke down. The wife initiated proceedings for divorce, maintenance and return of gold ornaments. The Family Court at Kottayam allowed the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty but rejected the claim concerning the gold ornaments. It nevertheless directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his physical condition had been wrongly overlooked. Medical records and a Medical Board certificate showed that he had 70% permanent locomotor disability in relation to his whole body.
His case was that the disability prevented him from working and earning an income and therefore he could not afford the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
Justice G. Girish acknowledged the medical evidence concerning the petitioner’s physical incapacity. However, the Court noted that the Family Court had considered the entire evidence before concluding that he had sufficient resources to pay ₹10,000 per month.
The Family Court had taken into account the petitioner’s own statement that he and his mother had met the expenses of the marriage and that he had maintained the respondent while she was living with him. The Court also noted that the respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself.
The High Court clarified that the finding was not based on whether the petitioner was an “able-bodied person”. Instead, the Family Court had assessed the circumstances and evidence as a whole before finding that he had the means to pay maintenance.
The Court further observed:
"In this context, it is worth to note that even as per the version of the petitioner, 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 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."
Finding no illegality, impropriety or error in the Family Court’s order, the Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition. The direction to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent therefore remained undisturbed.
Case Details:
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Case Number: R.P.F.C. No. 122 of 2024
Judge: Justice G. Girish
Decision Date: September 30, 2026
