Kerala High Court
Firoz Bakker vs Nadeera on 21 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 577 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2017 IN MC
NO.219 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC:
FIROZ BAKKER
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, CHEERAMBATHEL
HOUSE, KOLATH KOLALAMBA P.O., EDAPPAL-679576.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN MC:
1 NADEERA
AGED 26 YEARS, 26 YEARS, D/O. SAINUDHEEN,
PANANGELA VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOLATH, KOLALAMBA
P.O., EDAPPAL-679576.
2 MARIYAM
AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
NADEERA, 26 YEARS, D/O. SAINUDHEEN, PANANGELA
VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOLATH, KOLALAMBA P.O.,
EDAPPAL-679576.
BY ADV SMT.K.NANDINI
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.577 of 2017
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 03.08.2017 in MC No.219/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur.
2. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and 3,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent remarried subsequent to the impugned order and she is not entitled for maintenance after remarriage.
RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221 3
5. This Court considered the above contention of the petitioner. Admittedly, the remarriage happened after the impugned order. If that be the case, the 1st respondent is not entitled for maintenance. But, the petitioner has to prove the same before the Family Court by adducing evidence. The petitioner can file appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146 BNSS. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is paying maintenance to the child as ordered by the Family Court. The same is recorded.
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") RPFC No.577 of 2017 2025:KER:55221 4 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 RPFC No.577 of 2017 2025:KER:55221 5 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."
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 RPFC No.577 of 2017 2025:KER:55221 6 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."RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221 7 Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. But, I make it clear that, if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioner can file appropriate application before the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146 of BNSS.
Granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Family Court, this Revision Petition (Family Court) is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE