Kerala High Court
Hussain vs Shamila on 22 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:70636
RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 IN MC NO.20 OF 2019 OF
FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
HUSSAIN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.ALIYARKUNJU KVM HOUSE, PADINJATTEKARA P.O.,
THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
BY ADV SHRI.RAVI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAMILA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU SHAMILA MANZIL ,PADINJATTEKARA
P.O. THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
2 ANCIL ALI(MINOR)
AGED 17 YEARS
S/O.HUSSAIN, SHAMILA MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA P.O.
THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
SHAMILA ,AGED 36 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU SHAMILA
MANZIL,PADINJATTEKARA P.O. THEVALAKKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
2025:KER:70636
RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023
2
3 ANVAR ALI (MINOR)
AGED 14 YEARS
S/O.HUSSAIN, SHAMILA MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA P.O.
THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
SHAMILA ,AGED 36 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU SHAMILA
MANZIL, PADINJATTEKARA P.O. THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 690524
4 ANZIA FATHIMA HUSSIAN (I MINOR)
AGED 10 YEARS
D/O.HUSSIAN SHAMILA MANZIL,PADINJATTEKARA P.O.
THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
SHAMILA ,AGED 36 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU
SHAMILA MANZIL,PADINJATTEKARA P.O.
THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
SHRI.SHAJI S.
SMT.HALIYA T.P.
SHRI.MAHADEV M.J.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70636
RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.358 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 30.06.2022 in MC No.20/2019 of Family Court, Chavara. As per the above order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents wife and children. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The petitioner took a contention before the Court that children are staying with him. The Court directed the petitioner to take out a commission; but the petitioner refused. Subsequently the 1 st respondent produced the children before the Court. It will be 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 4 better to extract paragraphs 23 and 25 of the above judgment:
"23. Respondent has taken a contention that petitioners 2 to 4 are in his custody and is living with the respondent in this case and that he is meeting the entire expenses of the petitioners 2 to 4, children of 1st petitioner and respondent in this case. According to the respondent, they are living in his house and occasionally they used to meet the 1 st petitioner and he has never obstructed petitioners 2 to 4 from meeting the 1st petitioner. In short, respondent contended that he need not pay maintenance to petitioners 2 to 4.
24. When this contention was raised by the respondent on 05.01.21. He agreed to take out an advocate commissioner on that day to prove that petitioners 2 to 4 are in his custody. On 05.01.21 at 3.30 pm when the case was again taken up by my learned predecessor, the respondent has not filed application for appointment of advocate commissioner. Hence the case was posted to 06.01.21. On 06.01.21, 1st petitioner and other petitioners were present. Petitioners 2 to 4 who are the children of 1st petitioner and respondent were produced by the 1st petitioner. My learned Predecessor has interacted with the children. It is recorded in the order sheet by my learned predecessor that all of them stated that they are 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 5 residing with their mother and the second petitioner Ancil Ali H who is the eldest son stated that they are living with the mother continuously for the last 2 years and did not reside with the father after parents have separated."
4. This shows the attitude of the petitioner. He is not coming before the Court with clean hands. As I mentioned earlier, the marriage and paternity are not disputed. The only contention of the petitioner is that he is ill because he has kidney stone. That is not a serious problem which can be cured through medication or through minor surgery. The petitioner is a skilled labourer who knows plumbing, electrical work, etc. The Family Court fixed only Rs.2,500/- to the wife as she admitted that she is getting an amount of Rs.5,000/- because she is working. As far as the children are concerned, only Rs.5,000/- each is granted. The same is only a reasonable amount. 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 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 6 [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 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 7 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 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:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 8
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 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 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 9 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 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 10 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."
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.
2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 11 There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, dismissed. I make it clear that if the children attained majority and they have no physical disability, they are entitled maintenance till the date on which they attained majority.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:70636
RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023
12
APPENDIX OF RPFC 358/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
PAYMENT