Kerala High Court
Ajayakumar vs Anithakumari on 6 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:73288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.348 OF 2017
OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
AJAYAKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KOVIL VADAKKATHIL, CHEERAMKAVU,
EZHUKONE P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691505
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
SHRI.ARUN JOHNY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 ANITHAKUMARI
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. BABU, MULLATHARA, PALAKKADAVU, VELLIMON P.O.,
PERINAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691511
2 AKHIL AJAY
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O. AJAYAKUMAR, MULLATHARA, PALAKKADAVU, VELLIMON
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:73288
P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691511
3 AKSHARA AJAY
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR) AGED 16 YEARS,D/O. AJAYA KUMAR,
MULLATHARA, PALAKKADAVU, VELLIMON P.O., PERINAD
VILLAGE, KOLLAM 691511(REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER &
GUARDIAN ANITHAKUMARI, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
3
2025:KER:73288
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
R.P.(F.C) No.13 of 2023
-------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
04.12.2021 in M.C. No.348/2017 on the file of the Family
Court, Kollam. As per the impugned order, the Family Court
granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs.5,000/- per month and
Rs.3,500/- each per month to the children. Aggrieved by the
same, this Revision Petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that, he relinquished the vakalath.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner met with an accident and is completely laid up, and
therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance as
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
ordered by the Family Court.
4. This Court considered that contention. This Court
also perused the impugned order. This point was raised
before the Family Court, and the Family Court considered the
same in detail, and thereafter rejected that contention. These
are finding of facts by the Family Court. This Court cannot
interfere with the same invoking the revisional jurisdiction.
The marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent is not
disputed. The paternity of the children are also not disputed.
The Family Court found that the petitioner is able to pay
maintenance, and the respondents are unable to maintain
themselves. In such circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned
order. But, I make it clear that, if there is any change of
circumstances, the petitioner and the respondents can
approach the jurisdictional Family Court with appropriate
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C./146 BNSS. As far as the
impugned order is concerned, I see no reason to interfere with
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
the same.
5. 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
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
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
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."
6. 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
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
the derelicts."
7. 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."
8. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC
4261], the Apex Court observed like this:
"15. The High Court, without indicating any reason,
has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to
Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to
conceive that a woman of her status would be in a
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It
can never be forgotten that the inherent and
fundamental principle behind S.125 CrPC is for
amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as
mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when
she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The
statute commands there has to be some acceptable
arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The
principle of sustenance gets more heightened when
the children are with her. Be it clarified that
sustenance does not mean and can never allow to
mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained
to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to
feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither
and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she
is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her husband. And
that is where the status and strata of the husband
comes into play and that is where the legal obligation
of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as
the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance
within the parameters of S.125 CrPC, it has to be
adequate so that she can live with dignity as she
would have lived in her matrimonial home. She
cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a
beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an
order under S.125 CrPC can be passed if a person
despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by
the husband that he does not have the means to pay,
for he does not have a job or his business is not doing
well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they
have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy,
able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he
is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for
wife's right to receive maintenance under S.125 CrPC,
unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While
determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court
in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun and
Others, 1997 KHC 554 : 1997 (7) SCC 7 : 1997 (2) KLT
SN 62 : AIR 1997 SC 3397 : 1997 (5) ALT 25 : 1997 All
LJ 2091 has held as follows:
"The Court has to consider the status of the parties,
their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to
pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his
own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the
law and statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the
wife should be such as she can live in reasonable
comfort considering her status and the mode of life
she was used to when she lived with her husband and
also that she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount
so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
9. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2023
2025:KER:73288
the Apex Court, I think there is nothing 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
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06.10.2025
Judgment dictated 06.10.2025
Judgment uploaded 07.10.2025
