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
2025:KER:62640
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
2025:KER:62640
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
2025:KER:62640
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
2025:KER:62640
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
2025:KER:62640
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
2025:KER:62640
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
