Kerala High Court
Vino Bastian C vs Annnamma Cici on 8 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:74578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 441 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2023 IN MC
NO.298 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VINO BASTIAN C,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O DEVASY KUTTY, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
MUTHUCDU P.O., PERUVANNAMOOZHY KOZHIKODE,,
PIN - 673528
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.PREETHA S CHANDRAN
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ANAND REMESH
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.C.R.REKHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANNNAMMA CICI,
AGED 36 YEARS
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI,,
PIN - 682507
2 VIMA VINO BASTIAN(MINOR)
AGED 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANNNAMMA CICI,
2025:KER:74578
RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023
2
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O.,
KOCHI,,
PIN - 682507
3 AMEN VINO BASTIAN( MINOR)
AGED 13 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANNNAMMA CICI,
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O.,
KOCHI,,
PIN - 682507
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JERIL BABU
SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH
SMT.PRASUDHA.S
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.10.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.440/2023, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74578
RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 440 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2023 IN MC
NO.298 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VINO BASTIAN C,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O DEVASY KUTTY, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, MUTHUCDU
P.O., PERUVANNAMOOZHY KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673528
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.PREETHA S CHANDRAN
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ANAND REMESH
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.C.R.REKHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANNNAMMA CICI,
AGED 36 YEARS
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O.,
KOCHI,, PIN - 682507
2 VIMA VINO BASTIAN(MINOR)
AGED 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANNNAMMA CICI,
2025:KER:74578
RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023
4
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O.,
KOCHI,, PIN - 682507
3 AMEN VINO BASTIAN( MINOR)
AGED 13 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER ANNNAMMA CICI,
CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O.,
KOCHI,, PIN - 682507
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JERIL BABU
SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH
SMT.PRASUDHA.S
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.10.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.441/2023, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74578
RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
RP (FC) Nos.441 & 440 of 2023
-------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of October, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These revisions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these revisions by a common order.
2. Petitioner suffered an ex-parte order in MC 298/2013 from the Family Court Ernakulam, which was filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the ex- parte order dated 17.10.2017 in MC 298/2013, RPFC 440/2023 is filed. The petitioner also filed MP 52/2023 and MP 53/2023 in MC 298/2013 to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the delay of 1213 days in filing the said petition. The above petitions were dismissed as per the order dated 10.07.2023 by the Family Court. Aggrieved by those orders, RPFC 441/2023 is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. First, I will consider RPFC 441/2023. The Family Court dismissed the petitions to set aside the ex parte order, which was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 1213 days as per the impugned order. The Family Court found that in June 2015, the 2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 6 petitioner was once set ex-parte for not filing counter. Thereafter, that ex-parte order was set aside, and even then, he did not file any counter. The Family Court also found that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of interim maintenance, and accordingly, a warrant was issued against him. Hence, the Family Court found that the contention that he was set ex-parte because he did not receive any communication regarding the case due to the death of his counsel cannot be accepted. The Family Court also found that there is no reasonable or probable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the petition. Hence, the Family Court dismissed the delay condonation petition, and consequently, the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was also dismissed. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the above finding of the Family Court. Therefore, there is no merit in RPFC 441/2023.
5. As far as RPFC 440/2023 is concerned, it is an ex-parte order. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent, as well as the paternity of the children, is not disputed. The Family Court granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.4,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. I see no reason to interfere with the same.
2025:KER:74578
RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023
7
6. 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 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."
2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 8
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."
8. 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."
9. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC 4261], the Apex Court observed like this:
2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 9
15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to 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 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 2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 10 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."
10. In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the ex-parte order passed by the Family Court. The Family Court fixed only a reasonable amount as maintenance for the respondents.
2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 11 Consequently, there is no merit in these revisions. Therefore, these revision petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 08.10.2025
Judgment dictated 08.10.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 09.10.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 13.10.2025 2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 12 APPENDIX OF RPFC 441/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC 298/2013 DATED 17.10.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP(EX) 193/2019 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.P 52/2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO: 53/2023 IN MC 298 /2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM 2025:KER:74578 RPFC NOS.441 & 440 OF 2023 13 APPENDIX OF RPFC 440/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP(EX) 193/2019 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.P 52/2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.P NO: 53/2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 IN M.P NO: 52/2023 AND M.P NO: 53/2023 IN M.C 298/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, EKM RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY PROCEEDINGS IN MC 298/2013