Kerala High Court
Haris Parambrakandy vs M.Anseera on 12 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:60653
RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2019 IN MC NO.331 OF 2018
OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
HARIS PARAMBRAKANDY
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA, POLICE CONSTABLE (DRIVER),
KAPPIYIL HOUSE, THOLAMBRA.P.O., KANNUR-670702.
BY ADV SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
M.ANSEERA,
AGED 21 YEARS
W/O.HARIS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
KOODALI.P.O., KANNUR-670592.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60653
RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.378 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 12.07.2019 in MC No.331/2018 of Family Court, Thalassery. As per the above judgment, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that marital life was only for 28 days. The Family Court has not considered the income of the petitioner while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is working as a driver in the Police Department. He may be getting sufficient salary. The 2025:KER:60653 RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019 3 marriage is not disputed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent. I see absolutely 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 2025:KER:60653 RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019 4 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.
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 2025:KER:60653 RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019 5 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.
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.
Keeping in mind the above principle of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere 2025:KER:60653 RPFC NO. 378 OF 2019 6 with the impugned order.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE