Kerala High Court
Nhandadi Pavithran vs Praseetha C.V on 30 May, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC Nos.11 & 31 OF 2017 1
2025:KER:38615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RPFC NO. 11 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2016 IN MC
NO.231 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
NHANDADI PAVITHRAN
AGED 50 YEARS
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, NHANDADI HOUSE,
VANHERI DESOM, THILLANKERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
SMT.T.S.REMYA
RESPONDENT/S:
PRASEETHA C.V
AGED 42 YEARS
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. ACHUTHAN, VELLOTH HOUSE,
KOTTAYAM MALABAR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670 702.
BY ADV SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RPFC Nos.11 & 31 OF 2017 2
2025:KER:38615
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.05.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.31/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC Nos.11 & 31 OF 2017 3
2025:KER:38615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RPFC NO. 31 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2016 IN MC
NO.231 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
PRASEETHA C.V.
AGED 39 YEARS
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.ACHUTHAN, VELLOTH HOUSE,
KOTTAYAM MALABAR VILLAGE, KANNUR
BY ADV SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
NHANDADI PAVITHRAN
AGED 47 YEARS, NHANDADI HOUSE, VENHERI DESOM,
P.O.THILLANKERI, KANNUR 670 702.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.05.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.11/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC Nos.11 & 31 OF 2017 4
2025:KER:38615
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
R.P.F.C. Nos. 11 & 31 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025
ORDER
These revisions are connected and therefore, I am
disposing of these revisions by a common order.
2. The impugned order in these revisions is the
order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery in MC
No.231/2014. The petitioner in MC No.231/2014 on the file
of the Family Court, Thalassery is the revision petitioner in
RPFC No. 31/2017 and the respondent in the above case is
the revision petitioner in RPFC No. 11/2017 (hereinafter the
parties are mentioned according to their status in the Family
Court).
3. The petitioner filed MC No.231/2014
claiming maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. According to
the petitioner, the respondent neglected the petitioner and
2025:KER:38615
therefore, she is entitled maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.
The Family Court considered MC No. 231/2014 along with
OP No.422/2013, OP No.460/2014 and OP No. 423/2014. As
per the impugned judgment, the Family Court allowed MC
No. 231/2014 directing the respondent to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the direction to pay maintenance, RPFC No.
11/2017 is filed. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance
and also the direction to pay the maintenance from the date
of order instead of date of application, the petitioner filed
RPFC No. 31/2017.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
5. This Court perused the impugned order. As
per the impugned order, the Family Court considered the
evidence available in detail and thereafter, found that the
petitioner is entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-.
The petitioner filed OP No. 422/2013 for restitution of
2025:KER:38615
conjugal rights. The Family Court allowed that petition and
directed the respondent to take the petitioner with him and
live together. Admittedly, the above order is challenged
before this Court by filing a separate Mat Appeal by the
respondent. The Family Court already ordered restitution of
conjugal rights based on a petition filed by the wife. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is living
separately without any sufficient reason. Therefore, there is
nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
6. As far as quantum of maintenance is
concerned, the Family Court considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, fixed the amount as Rs.5,000/-
per month. I see no reason to interfere with the same also.
7. The contention of the petitioner in RPFC No.
31/2017 is that the learned Family Court granted
maintenance only from the date of order instead of the date
of application. No reason is mentioned for passing such an
order. The counsel submitted that the same is incorrect. I
2025:KER:38615
think there is some force in the above argument. When an
application for maintenance is filed and the same will be
allowed, normally it should be from the date of application. If it
is from the date of order, a reason is necessary. No such reason is
mentioned. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for the
maintenance from the date of application can be allowed.
Therefore, these revisions are disposed of in the
following manner :
2) RPFC No.11/2017 is dismissed.
3) RPFC No.31/2017 is allowed in part and the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- is directed to be paid by the respondent from
the date of application.
4) If any amount is deposited by the respondent, the same
will be adjusted towards the arrears of maintenance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
