Kerala High Court
Muneer.V.P vs Fahida Mahar on 16 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:52865
RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2017 IN MC NO.192 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MUNEER.V.P
S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, KADAVATHOOR P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.RENY ANTO
SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FAHIDA MAHAR
D/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT
KOTTARATH HOUSE,P.O KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT
2 HAMNA MUNEER
D/O. MUNEER, AGED 5 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NEXT FRIEND HER MOTHER FAHIDA MAHAR K,D/O.
MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATH
HOUSE, P.O, KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT
3 HAMDA MUNEEER
D/O. MUNEER, AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HEER NEXT FRIEND HER MOTHER FAHIDA MAHAR K, D/O.
MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATH
HOUSE,P.O KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT
2025:KER:52865
RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017
2
4 HATHIM
S/O. MUNEEER, AGED 1 YEAR, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NEXT FRIEND HER MOTHER FAHIDA MAHAR K,D/O.
MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATH
HOUSE, P.O KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52865
RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.232 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 11.04.2017 in MC No.192/2016 of Family Court, Thalassery. The respondents approached the Family Court with an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per the above order, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/- each to respondents 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive. The counsel also submitted that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason and she is not entitled maintenance. The counsel further submitted that the Family 2025:KER:52865 RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017 4 Court ought to have rejected the application of the 1 st respondent as she is living separately without any sufficient reason. The counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that, after considering the entire aspects, the Family Court passed the above order.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. This Court perused the impugned order and the available records. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Family Court considered the matter in detail. The Family Court found that the 1 st respondent is living separately for sufficient reason. It will be better to extract paragraph 8 of the impugned order:
"8. It was on 28.04.2010, the marriage between the 1st petitioner and respondent was solemnized. Her specific case is that the respondent has not properly maintained her and the children. It was for the delivery of the 4th petitioner she was taken to her parents house, but after the delivery she was not taken back to the matrimonial home, according to her. But at the same time the respondent's case is that she who has gone to her parents house never returned and was not prepared for a reunion in spite of mediation talk held at the instance of the well-
2025:KER:52865 RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017 5 wishers and relatives. When examined as PW1, the 1st petitioner also stated that it was her mother-in-law who took her to her house and thereafter she had not returned to the respondent's house. But her case is that after delivery of the 4 th petitioner the respondent and his relatives did not visit her nor did they take her to her matrimonial home. She also put forward a case that the respondent has married again a lady hailing from Malappuram and hence she is not prepared to go with him. She also stated that while residing together, the respondent and his relatives harassed her. The above said are the reasons put forward by her to remain there at her parents house. The respondent has not examined any one of the persons who was in the mediation talk to prove that any attempt was taken by him to take his wife back. He has not sent any notice asking her to come and reside with him. His only case is that he has directly asked her and through mediators also to reside with him, a case which is supported my no materials. So the above said evidence is so sufficient to hold that it is with justifiable reason the 1 st petitioner is residing away from the respondent."
5. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the amount awarded is only Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the children.
2025:KER:52865 RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017 6
6. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455], 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 2025:KER:52865 RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017 7 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.
7. 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.
2025:KER:52865 RPFC NO. 232 OF 2017 8
8. 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, dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE