Kerala High Court
Sreenivasan vs Reena on 31 July, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:57639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
ST
THURSDAY, THE 31 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 451 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.28 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SREENIVASAN
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KUNNOTH HOUSE,
CHANGAROTH AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, PERAMBRA
VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 524.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 REENA
D/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, MANIKKAM KANDI
HOUSE, CHANGAROTH POST, PERAMBRA VIA, KOYILANDY TALUK
673 524.
2 SREEDEV
AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY REENA R1, MANIKKAM
KANDI HOUSE, CHANGAROTH POST, PERAMBRA VIA, KOYILANDY
TALUK 673 524.
3 SREEREGHA AGED 15 YEARS MINOR
REP. BY REENA R1, MANIKKAM KANDI HOUSE, CHANGAROTH
POST, PERAMBRA VIA, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 524.
BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, for R1 to R3
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57639
RPFC NO.451 OF 2017
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
RP(FC) No.451 of 2017
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 14.03.2017 in
MC No.28/2016 on the files of the Family Court, Vatakara. As per
the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the
respondents @ Rs.2,500/-, Rs.3,000/- & Rs.3,000/- respectively.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Admittedly, when the claim petition was filed, the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were aged 16 and 15 years. Probably,
they might have attained majority. If that is the case, the
petitioner need not pay maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3,
on condition that, the children have no physical disability. As far
as the maintenance awarded to the 1st respondent, it is only
Rs. 2,500/-. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that, connected Mat. Appeal is filed and the same is filed against
the order of divorce passed by the Family Court. I see no reason to
post this maintenance case along with that Mat. Appeal. If any
2025:KER:57639
RPFC NO.451 OF 2017
change of circumstances comes after the disposal of the Mat.
Appeal, the revision petitioner can approach the Family Court with
an appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C/146 BNSS.
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
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
2025:KER:57639
RPFC NO.451 OF 2017
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:
" 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
2025:KER:57639
RPFC NO.451 OF 2017
to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court
overlooks the evidence of appellant - wife and the
factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court."
Keeping in mind the above principle of the Apex Court, I am
of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the
impugned order.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence,
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
