Kerala High Court
Onathukadan Hamsa vs Bushra on 28 July, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
1
2025:KER:55543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2016 IN MC NO.784
OF 2011 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ONATHUKADAN HAMSA
S/O.HYDRAS, AGED 48 YEARS, ONATHUKADAN HOUSE,
KADAMBUZHA AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER,ONNATHKADAN NISHAD, S/O.ONATHUKADAN HAMSA,
AGED 25 YEARS, ONATHUKADAN HOUSE, KADAMBUZHA AMSOM,
DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
SMT.TESSY JOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BUSHRA
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O.KURUPPATHVEETTIL HAMSA @ KUNHU HAJI, AGED 38
YEARS, KARYAVATTOM AMSOM, MANNARMALA DESOM,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
2
2025:KER:55543
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
R.P.(F.C) No.155 of 2017
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
17.11.2016 in MC No.784/2011 on the file of the Family Court,
Malappuram. The above case was filed by the respondent
claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per the
impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the
respondent @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same,
this Revision Petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Admittedly, the marriage is not disputed. The
respondent was aged 32 years at the time of filing the claim
petition. The Family Court granted only an amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month. I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
2025:KER:55543
4. 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
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
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
2025:KER:55543
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."
5. 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 advances the
cause - the cause of the derelicts."
6. In Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha
[2014 KHC 4690], the Apex Court observed like this:
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2017
2025:KER:55543
"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."
7. In the light of the above principles, I see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, there is no merit
in this revision.
Accordingly, this Revision Petition (Family Court) is
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
