A recent Kerala High Court judgement observed that a man had married a young woman through dishonest means, even though he knew that he could not have a physical relationship with her due to a stroke that left him paralyzed. The court ruled that he could not avoid paying maintenance to his wife.
The Kerala High Court observed that although he is physically incapacitated, he has the financial means to support both himself and his wife. So the high court upheld the family court’s order requiring him to pay Rs 10,000 each month for her maintenance.
The Kerala High Court also noted that even if his account of events were true, he still used deceptive methods by placing a matrimonial advertisement to find a wife/servant. He successfully married her while fully aware that he could not fulfill his conjugal obligations to his wife.
If you want to know more about this case and understand what husbands and wives should note about this judgement, continue reading.
What happened here?
According to the submissions in court, the marriage took place on August 1, 2015, after she found out about him via his matrimonial advertisement in a leading daily newspaper. However, the marriage was not consummated.
According to her, he could not have any physical relationship after suffering a paralytic stroke on October 29, 2012. When she got to know about this a few months after their marriage, she decided to end the marriage and accordingly took the necessary legal steps.
She filed a court case for divorce and return of gold ornaments. The Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor heard the case (M.C.No.137/2019) and ordered him to pay her a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month and also granted her divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, the family court did not allow her claim for return of gold ornaments and realisation of money.
He was unhappy with the family court order and did not want to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000.
Advocate K. Saneesh Kumar, assisted by Advocate Smt. V. B. Santhini, representing the husband, told the Kerala High Court that he was physically incapacitated due to a paralytic stroke and so couldn’t do any work and earn a living.
His advocate also told the Kerala High Court that in addition to the medical records, a certificate issued by the Medical Board of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta after examining him, showed that he had a permanent locomotor disability of 70% in relation to his whole body, and hence couldn’t do any work.
Why did husband lose the case?
Advocate Amitraj Kaushal practicing in the Supreme Court of India, said to ET Wealth Online: The husband lost because the Kerala High Court found that the evidence did not establish that his physical disability made him incapable of maintaining his wife. Although medical records showed a 70% permanent locomotor disability following his paralytic stroke, the Family Court found, on the overall evidence, that he had sufficient resources but was concealing his income. His ability to meet marriage expenses and his own claim that he had maintained his wife while she lived with him supported this conclusion.
The Kerala High Court also noted that the wife had no sufficient means to maintain herself. Importantly, the maintenance finding was based on his actual financial capacity, not on whether he was an “able-bodied” person. The Kerala High Court further criticised his conduct in obtaining the marriage through a matrimonial advertisement despite knowing his inability to fulfil his conjugal obligations.
What should husbands and wives note about this judgement
Kaushal says the key lesson from this judgement is that maintenance proceedings are decided on the evidence regarding a spouse’s financial capacity, needs and overall circumstances. A husband cannot avoid maintenance merely by asserting physical disability if the evidence indicates that he has sufficient resources or undisclosed income. At the same time, disability should be genuinely disclosed and supported by medical evidence.
For wives, Kaushal say it is important to place credible evidence before the court regarding their inability to maintain themselves and the husband’s actual means. Both spouses should maintain transparency about income, assets and relevant circumstances.
According to Kaushal, this Kerala High Court judgment also highlights the importance of honesty at the stage of marriage: a person should not conceal a material incapacity or misrepresent the purpose of entering into a matrimonial relationship. Such conduct can have serious consequences when matrimonial and maintenance disputes subsequently arise.
Kerala High Court discussion
Husband even though incapacitated from having physical relationship has means to maintain her
The Kerala High Court observed that while it is true that the medical evidence brought on record disclosed the physical incapacity suffered by him due to a paralytic stroke, the family court after the analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that he had sufficient resources to pay Rs 10,000 per month maintenance to her.
The Kerala High Court observed that the family court took into account that he, along with his mother, had met the expenses of marriage, and accordingly concluded that he had sufficient income but was not disclosing it.
The family court also took into account his contention that he had been maintaining her during the period she was living with him, to arrive at a finding that he is capable of maintaining the respondent.
The Kerala High Court said that based on the aforesaid premises, the family court concluded that he had sufficient means to pay a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to her.
Wife does not have means to maintain herself
The Kerala High Court observed that the family court ruled on the basis of the evidence on record, that she did not have the means to maintain herself.
So the Kerala High Court observed said that his physical incapacity as disclosed by the medical records does not assume any relevance, since the finding of the family court about his capability to maintain his wife, is not on the basis of the concept of ‘able bodied person’.
The family court had analysed the preponderance of probabilities (more likely to happen) to find that he had the means to pay Rs 10,000 a month, but he was hiding the income to try to avoid paying the maintenance to his wife.
Husband adopted deceitful tactics and married her
The Kerala High Court observed that according to his own account, he used dishonest methods by placing a marriage advertisement claiming he needed a servant. He then married her even though he knew he couldn’t fulfill his marital duties as a husband.
The Kerala High Court said: “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.”
Thus the Kerala High Court rejected his appeal.