Kerala High Court
Vikas K Kumar vs Kasthoori Vikas on 22 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 461 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2019 IN MC NO.89 OF 2015
OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VIKAS K KUMAR
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN, GURUPRASADAM HOUSE, EAST DESOM,
DESOM P.O., -683102, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTs/PETITIONERS:
1 KASTHOORI VIKAS
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.VIKAS, PONGASSERIL HOUSE, MARADI VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ADDRESS
FOR SERVICE- KASTHOORI P.V., D/O.P.R.VIJAYAN,
PONGASSERIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT, MODEL HIGH
SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., -686661, MUVATTUPUZHA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 SANVI VIKAS,
AGED 7 YEARS
D/O.VIKAS, PONGASSERIL HOUSE, MARADI VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., -686661, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN KASTHOORI P.V.
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
2
BY ADVS.
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SHRI.NAVEEN T.U.
SMT.PRIYANKA PAUL
SRI.GEO PAUL
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RAJESH N
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.370/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 370 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2019 IN MC NO.89 OF 2015
OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONERs/PETITIONERs:
1 KASTHURI VIKAS,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.P.R.VIJAYAN, PONGASSERIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT.
MODEL HIGH SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661.
2 SANVI VIKAS,
AGED 7 YEARS
D/O.VIKAS, PONGASSERIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. MODEL
HIGH SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661,
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER KASTHURI VIKAS.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
SMT.V.S.SIMI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
VIKAS K.KUMAR,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.K.KUMARAN, GURUPRASADAM HOUSE, EAST DESOM,
ALUVA, PIN - 683 102.
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
4
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.08.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.461/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
5
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. Nos.461 & 370 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2025
ORDER
These revision petitions are connected and therefore, I
am disposing these petitions by a common order.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
11.07.2019 in MC No.89/2015 of Family Court,
Muvattupuzha. The petitioners in RPFC No.370/2019 filed
the above petition claiming maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The petitioner in RPFC No.461/2019 is the respondent
in that case. (Hereinafter parties are mentioned according to
their status before the Family Court.)
3. The Family Court, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, found that the petitioners are
entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.12,000/-
respectively. Aggrieved by the order of maintenance, RPFC
No.461/2019 is filed by the respondent and aggrieved by the
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
quantum of maintenance, RPFC No.370/2019 is filed by the
petitioners.
4. Heard.
5. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the
1st petitioner is highly qualified and her parents are also
wealthy people. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the
Family Court is excessive. On the other hand, the counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the respondent is a Senior IT
Consultant and he is getting huge monthly income. The
counsel submitted that the maintenance awarded atleast to
the child may be enhanced.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the respondent. The marriage and paternity
are not disputed. It is also found by the Family Court that the
1st petitioner is living separately for sufficient reason. It is a
finding of fact. I am of the considered opinion that this Court
need not interfere with the finding of fact invoking the
revisional jurisdiction.
7. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned,
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent
is a Senior IT Consultant and getting huge amount and the 1st
petitioner has no job. The counsel for the respondent
submitted that the 1st petitioner is highly qualified and her
parents are also wealthy people. As far as the entitlement of
the petitioners to get maintenance is found by the Family
Court. The Family Court granted only an amount of
Rs.7,000/- and Rs.12,000/-. I see no reason to interfere with
the impugned order. As far as the enhancement of
maintenance is concerned, at the time of filing the claim
petition, the 2nd petitioner was aged 3 years. Probably he
might have attained the age of 13 years. There may be
increase in the educational expenses. If that is the case, the
petitioners can approach the jurisdictional Family Court with
appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C./Section 146
of BNSS. As far as the impugned order is concerned, I see no
reason to interfere with the same.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence,
dismissed. I make it clear that if there is any change of
2025:KER:63881
RPFC Nos.461 & 370 OF 2019
circumstances, the petitioners and the respondent are free to
approach the Family Court with appropriate application
under Section 127 Cr.P.C./Section 146 of BNSS.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
