Kerala High Court
Thasleemath vs Abdul Gafoor on 11 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.499 of 2023
2025:KER:67701
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 499 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2022 IN MC
NO.204 OF 2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 THASLEEMATH
AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. MONUDHEEN, AYINATH HOUSE,
MUNDAKKULAM, MUTHUPARAMBU P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673638
2 MUHAMMED HISHAM
AGED 12 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, REPRESENTED
BY MOTHER, THASLEEMATH, AGED 34 YEARS, AYINATH
HOUSE, MUNDAKKULAM, MUTHUPARAMBU P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, PIN - 673638
3 MUHAMMED RISAL
AGED 9 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER, THASLEEMATH, AGED 34 YEARS, AYINATH
HOUSE, MUNDAKKULAM, MUTHUPARAMBU P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, PIN - 673638
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
ABDUL GAFOOR
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. AALI, MEENMULLAMPARA HOUSE,
MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673661
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.499 of 2023
2025:KER:67701
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.499 of 2023
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.12.2022 in MC No.204/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. It was an application filed by the petitioners claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. The Family Court as per the impugned order, rejected the claim of the 1 st petitioner and maintenance is awarded to the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners at the rate of Rs.2,250/- each per month. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to the 1st petitioner and also aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 3 the petitioners. Even though notice is issued to the respondent, there is no appearance for the respondent.
3. This Court perused the impugned order and also the available records. The Family Court denied maintenance to the 1st petitioner mainly for the reason that she is well qualified and there is chance to get job to her. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the discussion in the impugned judgment:
"19. Points VII and VIII:- These points are jointly considered as common facts are involved. In the counter statement in O.P.381/2020 and M.C.204/2020 respondent has specifically pleaded that the first petitioner has passed MLT course and PPTTC course and she is working in a clinical lab in Kondotty. Respondent had repeated the said averments in his proof affidavit. During cross examination the said statement of PW1 was not denied. It is not denied that PW1 has such professional qualifications as alleged by RW1 in the RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 4 proof affidavit. He repeated during re-examination that petitioner had passed MLT and PPTTC courses and claimed that she is attending a clinical lab now. During further cross examination he was asked in which lab she was attending but he was unable to disclose the name of the lab. Then it was denied that PW1 has any such job. In her proof affidavit PW1 has not denied that she has passed such courses. Therefore, it stands proved that PW1 has passed MLT (Lab Course) course and PPTTC course. There is no reason why such a professionally qualified person should not get job elsewhere. PW1 has no case that she searched for the job and no job is available. No reason for her unemployment has been given by her in spite of being professionally qualified. Therefore, most probably she is employed or she is lying about her non employment. If at all she is not employed she should have given the reason for unemployment in spite of such good professional qualification. If she did not seek job, it is a self-induced disability. Therefore, in the given circumstances it cannot be concluded that first petitioner is unable to maintain herself. The respondent has produced various documents showing that he is having high debts. There are much proceedings against him for recovery of loans. He claims that presently he is not having any work as done earlier. However, he is RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 5 liable to pay maintenance for the children. A monthly sum of Rs.2,250/- per child is reasonable. The points are answered accordingly."
4. I cannot agree with the same. The Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha [2014 KHC 4690], observed like this:
"10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Family Court had in extenso referred to the respondent: salary and his economic condition. The respondent is stated to be an Engineer in PHE, Kota. He is in Government service and RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 6 according to the pay certificate then produced before the Family Court, he was getting salary of Rs.20,268/- per month. In her evidence, appellant-wife has also stated that the respondent owns a very big house of his own in which he is said to have opened a hostel for boys and girls and is earning a substantial income. She has also stated that the respondent owns another house at Talmandi Sabji Kota, Rajasthan and is receiving rental income of Rs.4,500-per month. Having regard to the salary and economic condition of the respondent, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/-to the wife and Rs.2,500-to each of the daughters, in total Rs.8,000/-per month. It is stated that the maintenance amount awarded to the daughters has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,000-per month. The maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/-per month awarded to the wife appears to be minimal and in our view, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance to the appellant-wife. We are not inclined to go into the said submission, but liberty is reserved to the appellant-wife to seek remedy before the appropriate court."
(Underline Supplied)
5. Similarly, in Dr. Swapan Kumar RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 7 Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal and Another [2019 Supreme (SC) 1125], the Apex Court observed like this:
"11. The next issue raised was that the wife being a qualified architect from a reputed university i.e. Jadavpur University, Calcutta would be presumed to have sufficient income. It is pertinent to mention that as far as the husband is concerned, his income through taxable returns has been brought on record which shows that he was earning a substantial amount of Rs.13,16,585/-per year and on that basis Rs.10,000/-per month has been awarded as monthly maintenance to the wife. No evidence has been led to show what is the income of the wife or where the wife is working. It was for the husband to lead such evidence. In the absence of any such evidence no presumption can be raised that the wife is earning sufficient amount to support herself."
6. Keeping in mind the above principles, I am of the considered opinion that simply because a wife RPFC No.499 of 2023 2025:KER:67701 8 is qualified, maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.PC cannot be denied. A qualified person need not get job in all situations. Admittedly, there is no evidence to show that the 1 st petitioner is having any job. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is unemployed even now. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the maintenance is to be awarded to the 1 st petitioner also. According to the petitioners, the respondent is an industrialist and he is getting sufficient income.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the 1st petitioner also can be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. I make it clear that, if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioners can approach the jurisdictional court for enhancement of maintenance.
Therefore, this Revision Petition is allowed in the following manner:
RPFC No.499 of 2023
2025:KER:67701 9
1. The order dated 29.12.2022 in MC No.204/2020 of the Family Court, Malappuram by which maintenance is denied to the 1st petitioner is set aside and the respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the 1st petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application filed under Section 125 Cr.PC before the Family Court.
2. The maintenance awarded to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are confirmed. But, I make it clear that the petitioners can approach the jurisdictional Family Court for enhancement of maintenance, if there is any change of circumstances.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE