Kerala High Court
Dr. Varun.S. Nair vs Remya.S. Nair on 6 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.146 of 2022
2025:KER:73398
1
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. 146 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2022 IN
MC NO.154 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
DR. VARUN. S. NAIR
AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF SUKUMARAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT VINDHYA VIHAR, THACHOTTUKAVU,
MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695571
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 REMYA. S. NAIR
AGED 34 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF ALLY KUMARI,
KUNNIL VEEDU, THEKKUMKARA,
NEDUMANGADU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541
2 SIVA NANDA (MINOR)
AGED 8 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF REMYA S. NAIR,
RPFC No.146 of 2022
2025:KER:73398
2
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER REMYA.S. NAIR, AGED
34, DAUGHTER OF ALLY KUMARI, KUNNIL VEEDU,
THEKKUMKARA, NEDUMANGADU.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
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.146 of 2022
2025:KER:73398
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.146 of 2022
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 31.01.2022 in MC No.154/2018 on the file of
the Family Court, Nedumangad. As per the
impugned order, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the respondents, who are the wife
and child of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.5,000/-
and 3,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.
3. The marriage between the petitioner and
the 1st respondent is not disputed. The paternity of
the 2nd respondent is also not disputed. The counsel
2025:KER:73398
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not
challenging the maintenance awarded to the 2 nd
respondent child. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the maintenance awarded
to the 1st respondent.
4. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned,
as I mentioned earlier, the marriage is not disputed.
The petitioner alleged that there is extra marital
relationship to the 1st respondent. That is not proved.
That itself is a cruelty on the side of the petitioner
towards the 1st respondent. Moreover, this Court
perused the impugned order. The Family Court
considered the matter in detail and thereafter passed
the impugned order. These are finding of facts by
the Family Court. While exercising the revisional
jurisdiction, there is limitation to this Court to
interfere with the finding of facts by the Family Court.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the
2025:KER:73398
impugned order.
5. As far as the quantum of maintenance is
concerned, the Family Court found that the petitioner
is a Sidha Doctor and he is conducting a Clinic also.
It is also found by the Family Court that the petitioner
is getting sufficient income. In such circumstances,
the Family Court fixed the maintenance amount.
Only a reasonable amount is fixed as maintenance. I
see absolutely no reason to interfere with the same.
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.PC / 146
BNSS. But, as far as the impugned order is
concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the
same.
6. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent
provision to protect the rights of women who are
2025:KER:73398
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
2025:KER:73398
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."
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 to have social relevance. So viewed, it is
possible to the selective in picking out that
2025:KER:73398
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."
9. 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
2025:KER:73398
to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely
difficult to conceive that a woman of her status
would be in a 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
2025:KER:73398
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 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
2025:KER:73398
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."
Keeping in mind the above principles laid down
by the Apex Court, I think, there is nothing to
interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit
in this revision.
Accordingly, this Revision Petition (Family Court)
is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06.10.2025
Judgment dictated 06.10.2025
Judgment uploaded 07.10.2025
