Kerala High Court
Prasad K.S vs Vasanthy M on 14 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:53479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 456 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.107 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
PRASAD K.S.
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS,NEDUKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PATHAR.P.O.,NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,NOW
RESIDING AT 125A, KUNDUPADAM ROAD,KANJIKKODE P.O.,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/1ST PETITIONER:
VASANTHY M
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.LATE GOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS,MUNDANTHARA HOUSE,
PATHAR P.O.,KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, POTHUKAL POLICE STATION
LIMIT.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53479
RPFC NO. 456 OF 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
R.P (FC) No.456 of 2016
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 16.07.2016 in MC 107/2014 in the Family Court, Malappuram. MC 107/2014 was filed by the respondent and her two children, claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court dismissed the claim petition of the children because they are major. The respondent was granted maintenance @ 2,500/- from 18.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner mainly challenged the quantum of maintenance. The marriage is not disputed. This Court perused the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the quantum of maintenance, because only an amount of Rs. 2,500/- is granted to the wife by the Family Court.
4. 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], 2025:KER:53479 RPFC NO. 456 OF 2016 3 the Apex Court held as follows:
"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 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."
5. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC 607], the Apex Court observed like this:
2025:KER:53479 RPFC NO. 456 OF 2016 4 "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."
6. 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 evidence of appellant - wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court."
7. Keeping in mind the above principles of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
2025:KER:53479 RPFC NO. 456 OF 2016 5 There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG