Kerala High Court
Guruth vs Ayswarya. A.S on 8 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.330 of 2018
2025:KER:60287
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 330 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2017 IN MC
NO.442 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
GURUTH
S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN, ANANDAKARA VEEDU,
KANNAMKUZHI, CHARUMUDU,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SRI.PANKAJAKSHAN.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
AYSWARYA. A.S
AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. AMBIKA, AYSWARAY,
PANKODE, ANAD VILLAGE,NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM - 695 544.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABU MATHEW
SRI.AJU MATHEW
SRI.P.BIJU (NEDUMANGAD)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.330 of 2018
2025:KER:60287
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.330 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 07.10.2017 in MC No.442/2015 on the file of
the Family Court, Nedumangad. As per the
impugned order, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of
Rs.6,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this
revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that as on the date of the claim petition, even
2025:KER:60287
according to the court, the petitioner is only having
the income of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner is not in a
position to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the
respondent as directed by the Family Court. It is
also submitted that subsequent to the impugned
order, the respondent re-married and there is
children in that wed lock. Therefore, the counsel
submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.
The counsel for the respondent submitted that the
Family Court considered all these contentions and
thereafter passed the impugned order.
4. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the respondent. If the respondent
remarried, she is not entitled to maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.PC on condition that there is no
dispute regarding the remarriage. If there is any
dispute, the petitioner is free to file appropriate
application before the jurisdictional Family Court to
2025:KER:60287
cancel the order. But, as far as the impugned order
is concerned, the Family Court considered the matter
in detail. The marriage is admitted. The Family
Court directed to pay only an amount of Rs.6,000/-.
The counsel submitted that the marital life between
the parties was only for one month. That is not a
reason to deny maintenance to the respondent,
especially when the marriage is admitted. According
to the respondent, the petitioner was working in gulf.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
I think, there is nothing to interfere with the
impugned order.
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
2025:KER:60287
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
2025:KER:60287
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
presence of the constitutional empathy for
the weaker sections like women and
2025:KER:60287
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
2025:KER:60287
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
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
