Kerala High Court
Shihabudeen .C vs Hannath A.K on 4 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.509 of 2018
2025:KER:59394
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 509 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2018 IN MC
NO.333 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC:
SHIHABUDEEN .C
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O ABBAS, RESIDING AT CHELAKKAL
HOUSE, RAHMATH NAGAR, KOOTTAYI (P.O.), TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY MR.SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O
MUHAMMED BAPPU, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, VETTOM, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN MC:
1 HANNATH A.K.
AGED 34 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT
ANGADIKKARANAKATH HOUSE, KOOTTAYI (P.O.),
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676562.
2 SHAHALA SHIHAB
AGED 11 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANGADIKKARANAKATH
HOUSE, KOOTTAYI (P.O.), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676562. REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER HANNATH A.K. (1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
ABOVE).
BY ADV SHRI.P.N.SASIDHARAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.509 of 2018
2025:KER:59394
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.509 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.08.2018 in MC No.333/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the 1 st respondent and Rs.6,000/- to the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent is having a job and she is getting income. In such circumstances, the Family Court erred in granting maintenance to the 1 st RPFC No.509 of 2018 2025:KER:59394 3 respondent @ Rs.4,000/- per month. The counsel submitted that, now the petitioner has no job.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. The Family Court taken note of the fact that the 1 st respondent is having a job. Thereafter, the Family Court fixed the maintenance @ Rs.4,000/-. The child is given Rs.6,000/-. If there is any subsequent event by which the petitioner lost his job, the petitioner can approach the Family Court with appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146 BNSS to very the order. But, as far as 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:
RPFC No.509 of 2018
2025:KER:59394 4 "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. RPFC No.509 of 2018
2025:KER:59394 5 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 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 RPFC No.509 of 2018 2025:KER:59394 6 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:
"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 RPFC No.509 of 2018 2025:KER:59394 7 evidence of appellant - wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court."
8. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by 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. If there is any arrears of maintenance to the respondents, the petitioner is granted four months time to pay the arrears of maintenance.
With the above observation, this Revision Petition (Family Court) is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE