Kerala High Court
Varunlal vs Mayamurali on 19 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.362 of 2019
2025:KER:62640
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 362 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2019 IN MC
NO.5 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
VARUNLAL
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. G. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
ELEVAKKATTUTHEKKADATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTAKKARA
MURI, THEVALAKKARA P. O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MAYAMURALI
D/O. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI,
KEERUVILAYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTAKKARA MURI,
THEVALAKKARA P. O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524.
2 DRUPATH V.
AGED 1 YEARS, S/O. VARUN LAL R.,
ELEVAKKATTUTHEKKADATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTAKKARA
MURI, THEVALAKKARA P. O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524. REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MAYAMURALI,
RESIDING AT KEERUVILAYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTAKKARA
MURI, THEVALAKKARA P. O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524.
RPFC No.362 of 2019
2025:KER:62640
2
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.362 of 2019
2025:KER:62640
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.362 of 2019
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24.07.2019 in MC No.05/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the wife and child of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 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 RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 4 submitted that the 1st respondent is now working as a teacher and she is getting sufficient income. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the Family Court considered all the contentions of the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order. The counsel for the respondents also submitted that no evidence is adduced by the petitioner to substantiate the contention that the 1st respondent is working.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The Family Court considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents and thereafter passed the impugned order. The Family Court granted only an amount of Rs.3,000/- each to the wife and child. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent is working as a teacher. But, no RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 5 document is produced before the Family Court to prove the same. But, I make it clear that, if the petitioner has got documentary evidence to prove that the 1st respondent is getting sufficient income, the petitioner can file a fresh application under Section 127 Cr.PC / 146 BNSS before the Jurisdictional Family Court to vary the order. But, as far as 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 RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 6 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 RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 7 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 RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 8 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. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered RPFC No.362 of 2019 2025:KER:62640 9 opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in this revision.
Accordingly, this Revision Petition (Family Court) is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE