Kerala High court recently upheld a lower court’s ruling that directed a paralysed man to provide Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his former wife.

The man, who married in August 2015 after the man placed a matrimonial advertisement 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, Bar and Bench reported.

Read Also: Husband Can Demand Wife’s Job Records To Contest Maintenance Claim: Rajasthan High Court

The marital relationship broke down later and the wife initiated divorce proceedings, seeking maintenance and the return of her gold ornaments. A family court then granted her divorce on  the ground of cruelty. The court also observed that the the husband had sufficient means to pay his ex-wife Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance. The husband then approached the high court, arguing that the paralytic stroke had left him physically incapable of working and earning an income, and therefore could not afford to pay maintenance.

However, the court rejected 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.

Read Also: Punjab & Haryana HC Stays Maintenance Order To Wife Accused Of Attempting To Kill Husband

The court said that the husband’s ability to pay maintenance was not based on whether he was an able-bodied person. However, analysing the overall circumstances, the court concluded that husband had sufficient means to pay maintenance, but was concealing his income to avoid doing so.

“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 stated, the report quoted.

Though the husband  relied on the medical records indicating that he had 70 per cent permanent locomotor disability, the court observed that this did not affect the family court’s finding that he had sufficient resources to maintain his wife. The High Court also noted that the wife did not have the means to maintain herself.