Kerala High Court
Sheney P vs Jayaprakash E.P on 27 January, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:1: 2025:KER:5702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
RPFC NO. 501 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023 IN MC NO.89 OF 2018
OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
JAYAPRAKASH E.P, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, AMRITHA SAGAR,
THENIHPPALAM P.O., KADAIKKATTUPARA ROAD, MUDRA
CORNER, MALAPURAM DISTRICT 676 121. PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT ATILYA SAGAR, SIVAGIRI NAGAR, KULAI
HASABETTUE P.O., DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA, PIN - 575019
BY ADV JAYAPRAKASH E.P(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 SHENEY P, AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. ACHUTAN NAIR, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH
P.O., KADAMPANADVILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 552 PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT 69/785, CHAITHANYA GARDENS, OPPOSITE ARA 25A
HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL, MANARCUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 AMRITHA JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 24 YEARS
D/O JAYAPRAKASH E.P ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH
P.O., KADAMPANADVILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 552 PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT 69/785, CHAITHANYA GARDENS, OPPOSITE ARA 25A
HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL, MANARCUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.JACOB P. ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX(K/1-C/2002)
MANU SANKAR P.(K/000823/2018)
AMAL AMIR ALI(K/000773/2019)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH RPFC.16/2024, THE COURT ON
27.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:2: 2025:KER:5702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
RPFC NO. 16 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023 IN MC NO.89 OF
2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
1 SHENEY P
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH
P.O, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
2 AMRITHA JAYAPRAKASH
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. JAYAPRAKASH, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH
P.O, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
BY ADVS.JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
AMAL AMIR ALI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JAYAPRAKASH E.P, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, AMRITHSAGAR, THENIPALAM
P.O., KADAIKKATTUPARA, ROAD MUDRA CORNER,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676121. PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT ATILYA SAGAR, SIVAGIRI NAGAR, KULAI
HOSABETTU P.O., DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -
KARNATAKA, PIN - 575019
BY ADV JAYAPRAKASH E.P(Party-In-Person)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH RPFC.501/2023, THE COURT ON
27.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:3: 2025:KER:5702
"C.R."
O R D E R
Both these Revision Petitions have been filed challenging
the order passed by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta in M.C.
No.89/2018 dated 25/10/2023.
2. The 1 st petitioner in the maintenance case before the
Family Court is the legally wedded wife (hereinafter, wife) of the
respondent therein (hereinafter, husband). Two children were
born out of their wedlock. The 2 nd petitioner therein is the elder
daughter. The wife and husband have been at loggerheads for
many years. They are living separately. There are a series of
litigations between them. The elder daughter is living with the
wife, while the younger daughter is living with the husband. The
wife and the elder daughter filed a maintenance case against the
husband, claiming maintenance @ `45,000/- each per month.
They alleged that they have no job or source of income and are
unable to maintain themselves. They further alleged that the
husband is working in the Merchant Navy and earns `9,00,000/-
per month. The husband resisted the maintenance case. He filed
a counterstatement. He raised a specific contention that the wife
is working as a clerk in Matsyafed and is able to maintain herself.
He further contended that the elder daughter has attained
majority and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:4: 2025:KER:5702
invoking Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
3. The parties went on trial. On the side of the petitioners,
the wife gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 series were
marked. On the side of the respondent, the husband himself gave
evidence as RW1 and a witness from Matsyafed was examined as
RW2. After the trial, the Family Court found that the wife is
working as a Data Entry Operator at Matsyafed, she is earning a
monthly salary of `21,175/- and therefore, she is not entitled to
maintenance. So far as the elder daughter is concerned, it was
found that she became a major and thus is not entitled to
maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. It has come
out in evidence that the husband has taken life insurance policies
in the name of the wife and Exts.B2 to B4 original certificates
relating to the same were in his custody. The Family Court
directed the husband to hand over those certificates to the wife
and elder daughter. R.P.F.C. No.16/2024 has been filed by the
wife and elder daughter challenging the impugned order rejecting
their claim for maintenance. R.P.F.C. No.501/2023 has been filed
by the husband challenging the direction in the impugned order to
hand over Exts.B2 to B4 certificates to the wife and elder child.
4. I have heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel for
the wife and elder child as well as the husband who appeared in
person.
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:5: 2025:KER:5702
5. The learned counsel for the wife and elder daughter
submitted that the Family Court went wrong in declining the
maintenance to both wife and elder daughter. According to the
learned counsel, the appointment of the wife as a clerk in
Matsyafed is a temporary and contractual one, and the meagre
income she gets out of the contract employment cannot be taken
as a bar in granting maintenance to her under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC
324]. The learned counsel further submitted that even though
under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.PC, a daughter who attained
majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from the father, a
daughter who attained majority is entitled to claim maintenance
from her father under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act (for short, the HAMA) till she gets married and
hence the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance to the
elder daughter as well invoking the provisions of the HAMA. On
the other hand, the husband, who appeared in person, submitted
that the wife is permanently employed at Matsyafed and earns
substantial income to support herself and the elder daughter. He
further contended that the wife and elder daughter had no claim
under Section 20(3) of the HAMA before the Family Court and
hence, at this stage, they cannot claim maintenance invoking the
said provision. The husband also submitted that he is jobless and
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:6: 2025:KER:5702
earns only `27,000/- from the LIC Pension Scheme he has with the
LIC, and from the said income, he has to support himself and his
younger daughter, who has recently joined MBBS.
6. The marital relationship and the paternity of two
children are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the
husband and wife are living separately. The elder daughter is
with the wife and the younger daughter is with the husband. The
maintenance to the wife was denied by the Family Court on two
grounds - (i) the wife is employed at Matsyafed and has sufficient
means to maintain herself, (ii) the wife left the company of the
husband and younger child without any valid reason, and the
husband has never refused or neglected to maintain the wife and
the elder child till separation.
7. Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) is a
measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women
and children and falls within the constitutional scheme of Article
15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. Under this provision, any person
having sufficient means is liable to maintain his wife if she is
unable to maintain herself or his legitimate or illegitimate minor
child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or his
legitimate/illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who
has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any
physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself,
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:7: 2025:KER:5702
or his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself. The
object of the provision being one to achieve social justice for the
marginalized members of society - destitute wives, hapless
children, and parents, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare
and benefit of the wife, children and parents. True, maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) is provided to
the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, "unable to
maintain herself" in Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS)
does not mean that the wife must be in a state of penury. In
Rajnesh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that even if the wife
is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded
maintenance by her husband. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2
SCC 316], it was held that the court has to determine whether the
income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in
accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial
home. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715],
the husband raised a contention that since the wife was employed
as a teacher and had sufficient income, she was not entitled to
maintenance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this
contention and held that merely because the wife was earning
some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance. Relying on Sunita Kachwaha (supra), the Bombay
High Court held that neither the mere potential to earn nor the
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:8: 2025:KER:5702
actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to
deny the claim of maintenance. The difference between 'capable
of earning' and 'actual earning' has been highlighted clearly in
Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna [(2018) 12 SCC 199], wherein
the Supreme Court decided that a wife who was capable of
earning could not be barred from claiming maintenance. It was
also held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it
would not be sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance
awarded by the Family Court. In Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh
Salkan [(2019) 12 SCC 303], it was held that the plea of the
husband that he does not have any source of income ipso facto
does not absolve him of his liability to maintain his wife if he is
able-bodied and has educational qualifications. Thus, the law is
well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is
earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming
maintenance from her husband. The test is whether the wife is
able to maintain herself more or less in the status in which her
husband has maintained her. The wife is entitled to live the same
standard of life as she lived along with the husband.
8. The definite case of the wife is that though she has
managed to get a temporary contract at Matsyafed after
separation, the salary she gets from the said employment is not
sufficient to maintain herself and the elder child. The evidence of
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:9: 2025:KER:5702
PW1 (wife) and RW2 (Deputy General Manager of Matsyafed),
Ext.X1 salary particulars pertaining to the wife and Ext.X2, the
notification pertaining to the post of Data Entry Operator at
Matsyafed would show that the wife is now working as a Data
Entry Operator on a temporary basis and drawing a salary of
`21,175/- per month. It is not a permanent employment. It has
come out in evidence that the wife is now residing in a rented
house and the elder child is depending on her. The claim for
maintenance by a wife who is unable to maintain herself would
also include the expenses incurred by her towards the reasonable
expenses of the child who is dependent on her. Merely because
the child is a major would not prevent the wife from claiming
maintenance from her spouse to meet the needs of the
dependent child. Section 125 of Cr.P.C does not prevent such a
situation.
9. As stated already, it has come out in evidence that the
wife held a job that was not permanent in nature. Her
engagement was purely temporary, and the income she gets from
the employment is a meagre one, which is hardly sufficient to
supplement the day-to-day expenditures of herself and her
daughter. The wife's temporary job, even if it provides some
income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her
husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:10: 2025:KER:5702
maintenance.
10. The evidence on record would show that the husband
was working as a Captain in the Merchant Navy and an
experienced sailor with a high income. According to the wife, the
husband is earning `9,00,000/- per month. The husband, while
examined as RW1, admitted that he was working as a Sailor in
ships. However, according to him, his employment was on a
contract basis and he used to get a chance to work three to four
months a year with a remuneration of `5,00,000/- to `6,00,000/-.
He further contended that, at present, he is unemployed and
suffering from various ailments. Admittedly, the husband is
educated and an experienced Sailor. Ext.B5 would show that his
sailing certificate was valid till 2005. He also admitted during the
examination that he used to do some private jobs while sailing. All
this evidence would show that he is capable of earning. The
medical documents produced on the side of the husband are not
sufficient to hold that he is suffering from any serious ailment,
and incapable of doing any work. The admission of the husband
that he is earning a pension of `27,000/- from LIC pension fund
investment would itself prove that he has a huge investment in
the LIC pension fund. The husband who is capable of earning
could not evade his lawful duty of maintaining his wife merely by
stating that he is not presently employed. An able-bodied
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:11: 2025:KER:5702
husband must be presumed to be capable of earning enough to
support his family unless he can prove genuine inability with
concrete evidence. The onus is on the husband to establish with
necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that
he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal
obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does
not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference
may be drawn by the Court [ Rajnesh (supra)]. Even though the
wife has filed a statement showing her assets and liabilities, no
such statement is filed by the husband. The husband has failed to
discharge the said burden with the necessary materials to prove
that he is unable to maintain his wife and child.
11. The finding of the Family Court that the wife left the
company of the husband without any reason and that till the date
of separation, the latter never neglected or refused to maintain
the former is without any basis. The definite case of the wife is
that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her
elder daughter after 21 years of married life due to the acts of
cruelty and severe abuse including physical violence. The said
case set up by the wife gets corroboration from the fact that the
police have registered Crime No.313/2017 against the husband
under Sections 498, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC. No evidence has
been adduced by the husband to show that he has maintained the
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:12: 2025:KER:5702
wife.
12. For the reasons stated above, the finding in the
impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance
from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in
not awarding maintenance to the wife who does not have any
permanent source of income.
13. The maintenance claimed by the elder daughter was
denied by the Family Court on the ground that she had attained
majority even before the filing of the maintenance case. The
learned counsel for the wife submitted that though under Section
125 of Cr.PC (Section 144 of BNSS), a minor daughter is entitled
to maintenance from her parents only till she attains majority; the
Family Court ought to have granted maintenance, taking cue from
Section 20(3) of the HAMA under which the right of maintenance
is given to a minor daughter till her marriage. Reliance was placed
on Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 422]
and Abhilasha v. Parkash and Others [(2021) 13 SCC 99].
14. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of
BNSS) are applicable irrespective of personal law. Section 125 of
Cr.P.C limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he/she
attains majority. By virtue of Section 125(1)(c)/Section 144(1)(c)
of BNSS, an unmarried daughter, even though she has attained
majority, is entitled to maintenance where such unmarried
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:13: 2025:KER:5702
daughter is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or
injury, unable to maintain herself. The scheme under Section
125(1) Cr.P.C (Section 144(1) of BNSS), thus, contemplates that
claim of maintenance by a daughter, who has attained majority, is
admissible only when, by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself. However,
as per Section 20 of the HAMA, the obligation of a parent to
maintain his daughter who is unmarried extends till she is
married. The provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of
BNSS) is a speedy and summary remedy and applies
independently of the personal law of the parties. This provision
does not cover the civil liability of a husband or father under his
personal law to maintain his wife and children. The pristine Hindu
law always recognized the liability of a father to maintain an
unmarried daughter. Section 20(3) of the HAMA is a recognition of
the principles of Hindu law regarding the obligation of a Hindu to
maintain his/her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to
maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. The
obligation, which is cast on the father to maintain his unmarried
daughter, can be enforced by her against her father if she is
unable to maintain herself by enforcing her right under Section
20.
15. But the crucial question is whether an unmarried
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:14: 2025:KER:5702
daughter who has attained majority is entitled to claim
maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) although she is not suffering from
any physical or mental abnormality or injury. The said question
came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jagdish
Jugtawat (supra). In that case, the mother of a minor unmarried
girl filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming
maintenance from her father before the Family Court. The Family
Court allowed the claim. The father challenged the order of the
Family Court before the High Court in revision, mainly contending
that the daughter is entitled to maintenance till she attains
majority and not thereafter. The High Court, though, accepted
the legal position that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., a minor
daughter is entitled to maintenance from her parents only till she
attains majority but declined to interfere with the orders passed
by the Family Court, taking the cue from Section 20(3) of the
HAMA. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified
in upholding the order of the Family Court, by which it granted
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C to the daughter even
after her attaining majority but till her marriage, taking the view
that it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings as otherwise the
party would be forced to file another petition under Section 20(3)
of the HAMA for further maintenance. Again, the question came
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:15: 2025:KER:5702
up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Abhilasha
(supra). In Abhilasha (supra) it was found that the judgment in
Jagdish Jugtawat (supra) cannot be read to laying down the ratio
that in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C filed by the
daughter against her father, she is entitled to maintenance
relying on the liability of the father to maintain his unmarried
daughter as contained in Section 20(3) of the HAMA. It was
further held that the Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra)
while hearing the criminal appeal against the judgment of the
High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, and in the facts of that case, the Supreme
Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and
hence no ratio can be read in the judgment of Jagdish Jugtawat
(supra) as contended by the appellant in that case. However, in
paragraph 34 of the judgment, it was observed that in a case
where the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide a case under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C as well as the suit under Section 20 of the
HAMA, the Family Court can exercise jurisdiction under both the
Acts and in appropriate case can grant maintenance to unmarried
daughter even though she has become major enforcing her right
under Section 20 of the HAMA so as to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
16. Coming to the facts of the case, the wife or elder
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:16: 2025:KER:5702
daughter did not take a plea at all before the Family Court that
the latter is entitled to maintenance invoking Section 20(3) of the
HAMA. Even in the revision petition, such a plea is not taken. The
plea is taken for the first time before this court during arguments.
Considering all these facts, I am of the view that this case cannot
be treated as an appropriate case where the Family court could
have granted maintenance to the elder daughter even though she
has become major enforcing her right under Section 20 of the
HAMA. The finding of the Family Court that the elder daughter is
not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, thus,
warrants no interference. However, the elder daughter is at
liberty to file a separate application for maintenance invoking
Section 20(3) of the HAMA before the Family Court.
17. R.P.F.C No. 501/2023 has been filed challenging the
direction in the impugned order directing the husband to hand
over Exts.B2 to B4 life insurance policy certificates to the wife and
elder daughter. It is not in dispute that Exts.B2 to B4 life
insurance policy certificates stand in the name of the wife and the
elder daughter. Hence, they are entitled to the said certificates. I
find no reason to interfere with the said direction of the Family
Court.
18. In the light of the above discussions, the finding in the
impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:17: 2025:KER:5702
from the husband is hereby set aside. I hold that the wife can very
well claim maintenance from her husband. MC is remitted to the
Family Court to decide the quantum of maintenance. The parties
shall appear before the Family Court on 18/2/2025. The Family
Court is directed to dispose of the MC in accordance with law after
affording further opportunities, if any, to the parties to adduce
evidence within a period of three months from the date of the
appearance of the parties.
The revision petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:18: 2025:KER:5702
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. 1159/2017 PENDING
ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT
PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 15.12.20217
Annexure R2 TRUE COPY B DIARY PROCEEDING AT FAMILY
COURT PATHANAMTHITTA IN MC 89/2018 DATED
03.01.2024
Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2023
IN TR.P (CRL). NO.65/2022 BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023
IN TR.P (C). NO. 526/2022 BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure R5 OPCRL 363/2023 ORDER DATED 24.05.2023
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure R6 TRUE COPY OF 'B-DIARY' PROCEEDINGS
RECORDS AT FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
DATED 15.06.2023
Annexure R7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER IN TRP(C) 844/2023
DATED.10.10.2024 SHOWING CRLMP 6/2023
INTERIM MAINTENANCE DISMISSED ON
14.09.2023 AT FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure R8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024
IN TR.P (C). NO. 844/2024 BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNSELLING CALL LETTER
OF DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION
OF YENEPOYA (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE STUDENT ID CARD OF 2ND
APPLICANT
RPFC Nos.501/2023 & 16/2024
:19: 2025:KER:5702
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 9 VIDEO NO.1 SHOWS THE RESPONDENT
TRAVELLING IN TRAIN FROM KOLLAM TO
TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL ON 30.11.2024
SUBMTTTED IN PEN DRIVE.
ANNEXURE 10 VIDE ONO.2 SHOWS THE RESPONDENT
TRAVELLING IN TRAIN FROM KOLLAM TO
TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL ON 30.11.2024 MAKING
VIDEO CALLS TO HER BOY FRIEND WITH WHOM
SHE HAD A LOVE AFFAIR WHICH IS
CONTINUING EVEN AFTER MARRIAGE SUBMITTED
IN PEN DRIVE.
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP DETAILS FROM
HONDA PLEASURE SCOOTER OWNED BY SHENEY P
VEHICLE NUMBER KL 20 D 6252
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE IMAGE OF THE BOY FRIEND
RAJESH MOOTHAYI AND SCREEN SHOT OF HIS
TALKS WITH WIFE FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION
OF THE PERSON.
