Appeal dismissed — ruling against Aneesh P. Thomas (Petitioner)
In Short
A man who suffered a paralytic stroke married a woman through a newspaper advertisement, later admitting he only wanted someone to take care of him and his mother. When the marriage fell apart, a lower court ordered him to pay Rs. 10,000 a month in maintenance to his wife, and the High Court upheld that decision, rejecting his claim that his 70% physical disability meant he could not pay.
The Parties
Party A: Aneesh P. Thomas
Party B: D.Beena
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. K.Saneesh Kumar, Learned Advocate Ms. V.B.Santhini
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Learned Advocate Mr. Anil D.Kartha, Learned Advocate Mr. Suresh G., Learned Advocate Mr. Sharath Eldo Philip, Learned Advocate Mr. Sreekumar G., Learned Advocate Mr. Ananthasankar A. Kartha
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice G. Girish
What the Case Was About
The petitioner married the respondent in August 2015 after placing a matrimonial advertisement in a leading daily newspaper. The marriage was never consummated because the petitioner suffered a paralytic stroke three years earlier, which left him incapacitated. The petitioner openly claimed he placed the ad merely to find a maid servant to look after him and his mother. Unsurprisingly, the marriage collapsed. The wife filed for divorce, return of gold, and maintenance. The lower court granted the divorce on grounds of cruelty and ordered the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month in maintenance, prompting the husband to challenge that monthly payment in the High Court.
Judgment Date
30 September 2026
The Outcome
The revision petition was dismissed, meaning the court's order requiring the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month in maintenance to his wife stays in place.
What the Court Looked At
- The court examined medical records and a certificate showing the petitioner has a 70% permanent locomotor disability from a 2012 paralytic stroke.
- The court noted the petitioner's own admission that he used a matrimonial advertisement to secure a maid servant rather than a genuine spouse.
- The court considered evidence showing the petitioner had sufficient financial resources to pay marriage expenses and maintain his wife while she lived with him.
- The court rejected the argument that a physical disability automatically excuses a husband from paying maintenance if he conceals his income and has hidden resources.
- The court observed that the wife had no independent means to maintain herself.
"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."
What This Means For You
This case sends a strong warning about honesty and responsibility in matrimonial matters. The petitioner tried to use a medical disability and a deceitful advertisement scheme as a shield to escape his financial duties toward his wife. When you enter into a marriage, the law places clear legal and financial obligations upon you, and courts will look past medical excuses if evidence shows you have the means or are deliberately hiding your income. If you are navigating a complicated family dispute or facing unexpected financial claims, Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate your next steps in plain, simple language.
You Still Have Options
If you are facing a difficult family dispute, struggling with maintenance orders, or wondering what to do after an unfavorable court ruling, it can feel overwhelming. You do not have to figure it out alone, and there are still practical paths forward, such as getting a second opinion, re-evaluating your strategy, or seeking non-judicial guidance. Reach out to Setback Solutions for help understanding your options and coordinating the next step. Please remember that Setback Solutions is not a law firm and does not give legal advice or guarantee any particular outcome.