ORDER : This revision petition is filed against the final order passed by Family Court, Pathanamthitta (for short 'the court below') on 29.10.2018 in M.C.No.238/2017. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. The Family Court has allowed the M.C and directed the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of the petition and also permitted her to realise the cost from the revision petitioner. The said order is assailed in the revision on hand. 2. Parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C. 3. The contention of Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel was that the respondent was at gulf at the relevant time when the M.C was considered by the court below and was represented by his Power of Attorney Holder. According to him the court below had posted the case successively within a gap of 10-15 days for adducing evidence from his side. According to him, the respondent had filed counter statement in the M.C. But since he was at gulf, could not attend the court below and adduce evidence based on the contentions raised in the objection. Therefore the court below has passed the impugned order ignoring the contentions. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had sought for monthly maintenance allowance on three grounds, the 1st ground was medical, the 2nd ground was educational and the 3rd ground was difficulties in life. According to him though it was stated by her in the M.C that she was studying radiology course, it has come out in cross examination that her education was completed prior to marriage itself. According to the learned counsel, though it was further contended by the petitioner that she has left the matrimonial home, since she was locked up in a room and was denied with permission to pursue with her studies, the said contentions are devoid of any basis. The court below has also failed to consider that the petitioner has left the family of the husband without sufficient reasons. The court below has also failed to consider that the petitioner has left the family of the husband without sufficient reasons. According to him if that aspect was taken care of by the court below the M.C ought not to have been allowed in favour of the petitioner, since she then would be disentitled to claim maintenance as per the provisions of the Code. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the above circumstances the impugned order is liable to be set aside and M.C. No.238/2017 needs to be remanded to the court below for enabling the respondent to adduce evidence on various contentions projected by him in the counter statement filed in the M.C. 5. This Court has called for a report from the court below. It was reported by the court below by letter dated 14.09.2021 as follows: “M.C.No.238/2017 filed by Smt.Minnu Thomas against her husband Rojo Thomas was allowed as per order dated 28.10.2018. In that case though, the respondent was entered appearance and filed vakalath on 20.02.2018, he did not file the counter to M.C even after giving 5 postings and the Court ordered last chance for counter. At last on 10.08.2018, the respondent was set exparte. Then MC was posted for evidence of the petitioner to 13.08.2018. Then the respondent filed counter and Crl.M.P.No.294/2018 to set aside exparte order. That petition was allowed and accepted counter on 14.08.2018. Then posted the case for evidence to 11.09.2018. On that day the respondent prayed for cross examination of the petitioner and the prayer was allowed on cost of Rs.500/-and posted to 15.09.2018. On 15.09.2018, the petitioner was cross examined and evidence of the petitioner was closed though the respondent was absent. Then the case was adjourned to 05.10.2018 with a direction that the respondent should be present on that date. But respondent was absent on 05.10.2018 also. Then respondent's evidence was closed since the respondent has not offered any evidence. The Court heard the matter on that date itself and posted for orders to 17.10.2018. Then adjourned to 24.10.2018, 27.10.2018 and 29.10.2018. On 29.10.2018, Order was passed by partly allowing the petition.” 6. It is found from the report that once the respondent was set exparte when he disobeyed the direction to file the counter statement as last chance. The Court heard the matter on that date itself and posted for orders to 17.10.2018. Then adjourned to 24.10.2018, 27.10.2018 and 29.10.2018. On 29.10.2018, Order was passed by partly allowing the petition.” 6. It is found from the report that once the respondent was set exparte when he disobeyed the direction to file the counter statement as last chance. Thereafter while the M.C was posted for evidence, he has filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte order. The court below had allowed the application and accepted his counter statement and posted the case for evidence to 14.08.2018. On that day the respondent had sought for an adjournment for the purpose of cross examination of the petitioner which prayer was allowed by the Court on payment of a cost of Rs.500/-. Though the case was posted successively to 15.09.2018, 05.10.2018, 24.10.2018, 27.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 respondent did not turn up to adduce any evidence. It is pertinent to note that not even an application to reopen the evidence and to get himself examined was filed. In the above context, the respondent now seeks to set aside the impugned order and remand of the case to the court below for reconsideration. To have an idea about the reasoning of the Family Court on which the award of the monthly maintenance allowance rests, paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned order are relevant and are extracted hereunder:- "7. The point:-Petitioner herself was examined as PW1. During cross examination PW1 would state that she was studying for radiology after passing SSLC in the year 2017 and that course was completed after the marriage. She would simply state that she was close in a room without permitting to complete her studies and that is why she went to her parental home leaving the matrimonial home. Going through the averments in the petition and those in the oral testimonies of PW1 she is to be justified to reside separately from the respondent. Respondent did not bring any evidence that she is living separately from him without any valid reason. Petitioner being the lawful wife of respondent and she has neither job nor any income he is bound by law to provide maintenance to her. 8. In the objection filed by respondent it is admitted that as a driver in Muscat he earns Rs.21,000/-as monthly income. Petitioner being the lawful wife of respondent and she has neither job nor any income he is bound by law to provide maintenance to her. 8. In the objection filed by respondent it is admitted that as a driver in Muscat he earns Rs.21,000/-as monthly income. In the circumstances respondent be directed to provide a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-per month to the petitioner from the date of the petition." 7. It has come out from the above that the respondent had admitted his occupation as a driver at Muscat and derival of Rs.21,000/-as monthly income. The court below failed to discuss on the averments of the petitioner in the M.C that she needs money for education and also on medical grounds. The court below has also observed that there was total want of evidence to establish those and that the respondent who admittedly has a monthly income of Rs.21,000/- is liable to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner. 8. With regard to the contention that the petitioner left the company of the respondent and started to live separately without any valid reasons, this Court is inclined to hold that the disentitlement of a wife to receive monthly maintenance allowance under sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C would only be on her refusal to live in the company of the husband without a valid reason, or living in adultery or separately by mutual consent. (emphasis supplied). 9. Therefore, sub Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C says that a wife will not be entitled to get monthly maintenance allowance if she refuses to live with her husband without any valid reasons. In the case on hand the respondent admittedly was abroad and the case was conducted through the power of attorney holder engaged by him. He has no case that he has ever offered her to join him to stay together after abandoning of company with him and she refused such an offer. The respondent cannot also raise a contention that the petitioner refuses to live with him for the reason that he was abroad at the relevant time. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel that an Original Petition had already been moved by the respondent seeking for dissolution of marriage. The respondent cannot also raise a contention that the petitioner refuses to live with him for the reason that he was abroad at the relevant time. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel that an Original Petition had already been moved by the respondent seeking for dissolution of marriage. These aspects are sufficient to convince that the petitioner had left the company of the respondent for a valid reason and therefore the court below cannot be found fault with in passing of the impugned order allowing the M.C and directing the respondent to pay Rs.7,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance. The revision fails for the reasons and is dismissed.