Kerala High Court
Baburaj.T vs Nadeena.K.P on 15 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:68639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TH
MONDAY, THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 33 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2017 IN MC NO.119 OF
2017 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
BABURAJ.T
AGED 42 YEARS
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, M.P.HOUSE,PADUVILAYIL
AMSOM, VENGAD DESOM, VENGAD P.O., THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
SRI.P.S.BINU
RESPONDENT/S:
NADEENA.K.P
AGED 39 YEARS
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, NAVEENA SADANAM,
SIVAPURAM AMSOM DESOM,SIVAPURAM P.O., THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.
BY ADVS.
SMT.D.N.NISHANI
SHRI.M.SURESH KUMAR
SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68639
RPFC NO.33 OF 2018
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
RP (FC) No.33 of 2018
-------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 07.12.2017 in MC No.119/2017 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery. It is an order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C to cancel the order passed by the Family Court in MC No.52/2015, by which the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.3,000/-. Subsequently, the present petition is filed because the respondent obtained a job on 23.01.2015. The Family Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition and the order granting maintenance was set aside with effect from 07.12.2017. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent obtained the job on 23.01.2015, and the Family Court cancelled the maintenance order only with effect from 07.12.2017. Hence, this revision petition.
2. Heard.
3. The Family Court considered the matter in detail in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the impugned order. It will be better 2025:KER:68639 RPFC NO.33 OF 2018 3 to extract paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the impugned order.
" 14. It is true that an agreement had been entered into between the petitioner and respondent and as per the said agreement, certain terms were incorporated also. It is by pointing out the said agreement which is marked as Ext.P6, the respondent's side put forward a case that the Ext.P6 doesn't stipulate that the petitioner herein is not liable to pay any maintenance even if in a case where there are change of circumstances. It is to be noted that Sec. 125(1) Cr.P.C confers a right on the wife, children or parents to be maintain so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. The right so guaranteed u/s 125 of Cr.PC cannot be warved by executing an agreement as it is against public policy and an agreement against public policy is void and unenforceable (Rajish R. Nair v. Meera Babu, 2013(1) KLT 899) Here the fact that the wife got an employment and hence she is able to maintain herself can be said to be change of circumstances and hence there is sufficient ground to allow the petition for cancelling the order passed in Ext.P1, but only from the date of this order.
15. The respondent has raised a contention in para 4 of the counter statement that Rs.1,20,000/ said to have been paid by the petitioner herein towards her maintenance is not correct whereas the said amount was paid as part of the agreement executed by the petitioner in consideration of the withdrawals of her grievance for the value of the gold ornaments taken away by the respondent in MC.52/12, the petitioner herein. It is by pointing out the fact that excess amount was received by the respondent herein the petitioner also prayed for an order for refunding of Rs. 15,000/-. It is to be noted that this proceeding is a summary in nature and the question as to whether the said amount which is required to be refunded is one which is paid to the respondent in connection 2025:KER:68639 RPFC NO.33 OF 2018 4 with the value of the gold ornaments cannot be agitated in this proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the said aspect in some other proceedings as envisaged under law, if so advised. At the same time, as stated above the petitioner is entitled to get an order for cancelling the maintenance order passed in Ext.P1 order from the date of this order. This point is answered accordingly."
I see no reason to interfere with the same. The Family Court relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, in which it is observed that a cancellation order under Section 127 Cr.P.C can be passed only prospectively. In the light of the facts and circumstances, I think, the impugned order need not be interfered by this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this revision is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG