Kerala High Court
Sunil vs Beena on 31 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:57646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
ST
THURSDAY, THE 31 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 616 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2016 IN MC NO.45 OF
2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SUNIL
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, AGED 47 YEARS, KALATHISSERRILVEEDU, CMC-I,
OTTAPPUNNA , CHERTHALA
BY ADV SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 BEENA
AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. SUNIL, THOTTUNKALPARAMBU
VEEDU,'THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
PIN- 688 003
2 DEVADHARSAN
AGED 8 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL THOTTUNKALPARAMBU
VEEDU,THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.REP BY
HIS MOTHER BEENA AGED 42 YEARS,W/O. SUNIL,
THOTTUNKALPARAMBU VEEDU,'THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
PIN- 688 003
BY ADVS.
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57646
RPFC NO. 616 OF 2017
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
RP(FC) No.616 of 2017
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 29.03.2016 in MC No.45/2014 on the files of theFamily Court, Alappuzha. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents @ Rs.2,000/- & Rs.1,500/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The Family Court granted only an amount of Rs.2,000/-, & Rs.1,500/- respectively to the respondents. The Family Court considered all the contentions of the petitioner and thereafter, passed the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the above order.
4. 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:
2025:KER:57646 RPFC NO. 616 OF 2017 3 "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."
5. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC 607] the Apex Court observed like this:
2025:KER:57646 RPFC NO. 616 OF 2017 4 "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."
6. 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 principles of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
2025:KER:57646 RPFC NO. 616 OF 2017 5 There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG