Kerala High Court
Gireesh.S.Nair vs Aswathy Mol on 17 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:69361
RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 /26TH BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 IN MC NO.18 OF 2015 OF
FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
GIREESH.S.NAIR
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
SASI BHAVAN(KONATHU), MELILA PO, KUNNIKODE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691508
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)
SRI.R.MOHANA BABU
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ASWATHY MOL
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.VENUKUMAR, ASWATHY BHAVAN, NADUKUMU,
CHENGAMANADU PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691557
BY ADV SRI.ARUN BABU
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69361
RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.56 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 26.05.2022 in MC No.18/2015 of Family Court, Kottarakkara.
As per the above order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage is not consummated and the same is found by the Family Court, and even then the maintenance is awarded. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is physically disabled and he is not in a position to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-. The counsel also submitted that the respondent 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 3 remarried. The counsel for the respondent disputed the remarriage and it is also submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
4. This Court perused the impugned order and the available materials. The marriage is admitted. The only contention of the petitioner is that the marriage is not consummated. The petitioner has not taken any steps to declare the marriage null and void. As long as the marriage is in existence and the respondent is his wife, the wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is physically disabled. Admittedly at the time of marriage itself, the petitioner was physically disabled. After knowing well that he is physically disabled, he married. When the parties separated, the petitioner cannot take a stand that he is physically disabled and therefore, he cannot maintain his wife. The third point raised by the petitioner is that the respondent remarried. This is disputed by the counsel for the respondent. I make it clear that if the respondent remarried and there is no dispute on that, the petitioner need to pay maintenance to the respondent till the 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 4 date of remarriage. As far 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:
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 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 5 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.
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 the weaker sections like women and children must 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 6 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 evidence of appellant - wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court.
8. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC 4261], the Apex Court observed like this:
15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 7 Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month.
It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind S.125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of S.125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a 2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 8 beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under S.125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under S.125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun and Others, 1997 KHC 554 : 1997 (7) SCC 7 : 1997 (2) KLT SN 62 :
AIR 1997 SC 3397 : 1997 (5) ALT 25 : 1997 All LJ 2091 has held as follows:
"The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
2025:KER:69361 RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023 9
9. 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. I make it clear that if there is any dispute regarding remarriage, the petitioner is free to approach the Family Court with appropriate application with documents under Section 127 Cr.P.C./Section 146 of BNSS to cancel the order.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:69361
RPFC NO. 56 OF 2023
10
APPENDIX OF RPFC 56/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD FROM DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM DATED 02.03.1999 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE UNIQUE DISABILITY ID ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 27.2.2020 Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP(IIMA).379/2014 DATED 29.10.2014 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED 02.3.2021 ISSUED FROM GENERAL OIL SERVICES, KOLLAM OF REVISION PETITIONER