Kerala High Court
George vs Juley on 12 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.254 of 2018
2025:KER:61005
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. 254 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2017 IN MC
NO.68 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
GEORGE
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MATHEWS, RESIDING AT
NAMPOZHIL NALLAVEEDU, KOMALLUR P.O,CHUNAKKARA
VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JULEY
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. C.J JOY, CHITTILAPILLY
THOMMANA HOUSE,AVITTATHUR P.O,. IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR 680 683.
2 HANNA GRACE GEORGE
AGED 11 YEARS, MINOR,D/O. 1ST PETITIONER JULEY
AND RESPONDENT GEORGE REPRESENTED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT ANDRESIDING AT CHITTILAPILLY
THOMMANA HOUSE, AVITTATHUR P.O,IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR 680 683.
3 AIDEN N.G.MATHEWS
AGED 8 YEARS, MINOR, S/O. 1ST PETITIONER JULEY
AND RESPONDENT GEORGE REPRESENTED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT AND RESIDING AT CHITTILAPILLY
RPFC No.254 of 2018
2025:KER:61005
2
THOMMANA HOUSE, AVITTATHUR P.O, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR - 680 683.
BY ADV SRI.N.L.BITTO
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.254 of 2018
2025:KER:61005
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.254 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 08.12.2017 in MC No.68/2015 on the file of the
Family Court, Irinjalakuda. As per the impugned
order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the
respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/-, 6,000/- and
4,000/- respectively. 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 Family Court after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, found that the
petitioner is able to maintain the respondents and
2025:KER:61005
the respondents are unable to maintain themselves.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1 st
respondent is employed in Kuwait and she is not
entitled to get maintenance. But, that is also
considered by the Family Court in the impugned
order and thereafter fixed the maintenance to the 1 st
respondent only at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. The 2 nd
respondent is granted maintenance at the rate of
Rs.6,000/- and the 3rd respondent is granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-. The petitioner
is also working at abroad as a Computer System
Administrator in a school.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I see, absolutely 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 under Section 127 Cr.PC /
146 BNSS before the jurisdictional Family Court to
2025:KER:61005
vary the order. But as far as the impugned order is
concerned, there is nothing 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
2025:KER:61005
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."
6. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain
2025:KER:61005
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
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
2025:KER:61005
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
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
