Kerala High Court
Ganesh Kumar O.K vs Jayasree T on 24 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:71399
RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2020 IN MC NO.78 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
GANESH KUMAR O.K.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, KOUSTHUBHAM, P.C.PALAM,
KAKKUR POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR
SMT.V.B.SANTHINI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JAYASREE T.
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.CHERUNNI @ APPUKUTTAN VAIDYAR,
THOTEKAT HOUSE, K.PURAM POST, TANALUR (VIA),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 307.
2 SREE GHANASYAM BHASKAR
AGED 12 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, THOTEKAT
HOUSE, K.PURAM POST, TANALUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676 307.
2025:KER:71399
RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL
SMT.M.SHAJNA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71399
RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.305 of 2020
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 15.10.2020 in MC No.78/2013 of Family Court, Tirur. As per the above order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents wife and child at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per Annexure-A2, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1,500/- each in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and therefore, the same is to be deducted from the impugned order.
The counsel also submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family court is excessive. The counsel 2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 4 submitted that the 2nd respondent is now aged 17 years and the petitioner need to pay maintenance only till he attains majority.
The counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.
The counsel submitted that as per Annexure-A2, only an amount of Rs.1,500/- is ordered as maintenance and the same is not paid even now.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The Family Court found that the 1 st respondent is living separately for sufficient reason. These are finding of facts in which this Court cannot interfere invoking the revisional jurisdiction. As far as Annexure-A2 is concerned, I make it clear that the amount ordered in Annexure-A2 can be adjusted to the amount ordered as per the impugned order, if it is paid. As far the impugned order is concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the same.
5. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their husbands. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455], the Apex Court held as follows:
2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 5
3. Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to 2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 6 render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
6. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC 607] the Apex Court observed like this:
9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art.15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause - the cause of the derelicts.
7. In Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha [2014 KHC 4690] the Apex Court observed like this:
2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 7
8. The proceeding under S.125 CrPC is summary in nature. In a proceeding under S.125 CrPC, it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant - wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant - wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant - wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court.
8. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC 4261], the Apex Court observed like this:
15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month.
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind S.125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial 2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 8 home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of S.125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under S.125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in 2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 9 law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under S.125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun and Others, 1997 KHC 554 : 1997 (7) SCC 7 : 1997 (2) KLT SN 62 : AIR 1997 SC 3397 :
1997 (5) ALT 25 : 1997 All LJ 2091 has held as follows:
"The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
9. Keeping in mind the above principle of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, 2025:KER:71399 RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020 10 dismissed. I make it clear that the amount ordered in Annexure-A2 can be adjusted to the amount ordered as per the impugned order, if it is paid. I also make it clear that if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioner and the respondents are free to approach the Family Court with appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C./Section 146 of BNSS.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:71399
RPFC NO. 305 OF 2020
11
APPENDIX OF RPFC 305/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED MC.NO.187
OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PARAPPANANAGADI DATED 19.07.2025