Kerala High Court
Firoz Bakker vs Nadeera on 21 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 577 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2017 IN MC
NO.219 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC:
FIROZ BAKKER
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, CHEERAMBATHEL
HOUSE, KOLATH KOLALAMBA P.O., EDAPPAL-679576.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN MC:
1 NADEERA
AGED 26 YEARS, 26 YEARS, D/O. SAINUDHEEN,
PANANGELA VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOLATH, KOLALAMBA
P.O., EDAPPAL-679576.
2 MARIYAM
AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
NADEERA, 26 YEARS, D/O. SAINUDHEEN, PANANGELA
VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOLATH, KOLALAMBA P.O.,
EDAPPAL-679576.
BY ADV SMT.K.NANDINI
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.577 of 2017
2025:KER:55221
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.577 of 2017
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated
03.08.2017 in MC No.219/2014 on the file of the
Family Court, Tirur.
2. As per the impugned order, the Family
Court granted maintenance to the respondents at the
rate of Rs.5,000/- and 3,000/- respectively. Aggrieved
by the same, this Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the 1st respondent remarried subsequent to the
impugned order and she is not entitled for
maintenance after remarriage.
2025:KER:55221
5. This Court considered the above contention
of the petitioner. Admittedly, the remarriage
happened after the impugned order. If that be the
case, the 1st respondent is not entitled for
maintenance. But, the petitioner has to prove the
same before the Family Court by adducing evidence.
The petitioner can file appropriate application under
Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146 BNSS. The counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
paying maintenance to the child as ordered by the
Family Court. The same is recorded.
6. 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")
2025:KER:55221
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
whereunder she is compelled to resign to
2025:KER:55221
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."
7. 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
2025:KER:55221
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."
8. 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."
2025:KER:55221
Keeping in mind the above principles laid down
by the Apex Court, I see 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 before the Family Court
under Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146 of BNSS.
Granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate application before the Family Court, this
Revision Petition (Family Court) is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
