Kerala High Court
Lijo. M. Jose vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC NO. 313 OF 2022 1
2025:KER:73321
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. 313 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.500 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
LIJO. M. JOSE
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O M.D JOSE, MOOKEN HOUSE, NO.81, ANUGRAHAM,
PRANAVAM NAGAR, OLLUKKARA DESOM, MANNUTHY, OLLUKKARA
VILLAGE, OLLUKKARA.P.O., THRISSUR THALUK , THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 655, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER. FATHER MR. M.D.JOSE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O
DEVASSY, MOOKEN HOUSE. NO. 81, "ANUGRAHAM'.,
PRANAVAM. NAGAR, OLLUKKARA DESOM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE,
MANNUTHY, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA
STATE
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELDHO PAUL
SMT.TESSY JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
RPFC NO. 313 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:73321
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SONIA.S
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O-SIVADAS, ADAMATTUPADATH HOUSE, NORTH JANATHA
ROAD, NJRA 224, PALARIVATTOM.P.O., KOCHI., PIN -
682025
3 SHIVASHANKAR @ ALLEN
AGED 9 YEARS
S/O LIJO M LOSE, ADAMATTUPADATH HOUSE, NORTH JANATHA
ROAD , NJRA 224, PALARIVATTOM. P.O, KOCHI.
REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT., PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI. HRITHWIK C.S
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. 313 OF 2022 3
2025:KER:73321
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
RP (FC) No. 313 of 2022
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated
30.05.2022 in MC No.500/2016 on the file of the Family Court,
Ernakulam. As per the impugned order, the Family Court
granted maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by
the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The short point raised by the counsel for the
petitioner is that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the
Family Court is excessive. The counsel submitted that at the
2025:KER:73321
time of filing the disclosure statement before the Family Court,
the petitioner was working in Tech Mahindra, Dubai.
Subsequently, he lost job. In such circumstances, he is not in a
position to pay the amount awarded as per the impugned
order. The counsel submitted that as per the interim order
passed by this Court, this Court directed the petitioner to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.5,000/- each to
the respondents. The petitioner is complying that order. The
interim order may be retained, is the submission of the counsel
for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted
that the 2nd respondent is a well qualified lady. She is not
interested to go for job. It is also submitted that she only want
the money of the petitioner. Therefore, the quantum of
maintenance awarded is excessive is the submission because
the 2nd respondent can work.
4. The counsel appearing for the party
respondents supported the impugned order. This Court
2025:KER:73321
considered the contentions of the petitioner and the
respondents. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is a divorced lady.
There is no case to the petitioner that she remarried. The
paternity of the child is also not disputed. The Family Court
fixed the quantum of maintenance on a premise that the
petitioner is working as an Engineer in Tech Mahindra, Dubai
and he is getting 7000 AED (around Rs.1,50,000/-) as monthly
salary. Considering that status, the Family Court fixed the
quantum of maintenance as Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the
wife and the child. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with
the above finding of the fact by the Family Court. The present
contention of the petitioner is based on the subsequent event.
If there is any subsequent event or subsequent change of
circumstances, the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional
Family Court with appropriate application under Sec.127
Cr.P.C./Sec. 146 BNSS. But, as far as the impugned order is
concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the same. The
2025:KER:73321
Family Court considered the matter in detail and thereafter,
passed the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with
the same.
5. Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to
protect the rights of women, who are abandoned by their
husbands. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455] considered this point in
detail. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder :
"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
2025:KER:73321
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 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. Similarly, the Apex Court in Ramesh Chander
Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC 607]
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
2025:KER:73321
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."
7. The Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and
Others v. Anil Kachwaha [2014 KHC 4690] also 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. Moreover, the Apex Court in Shamima
2025:KER:73321
Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC 4261] also 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 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
2025:KER:73321
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 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
2025:KER:73321
down by the Apex Court, I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
There is no merit in the revision and hence, the same
is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06/10/25
Judgment dictated 06/10/25
Judgment uploaded 07/10/25
2025:KER:73321
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEPHROLOGY FROM WEST FORT
HITECH HOSPITAL,TRICHUR, DATED 09.03.22
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
FROM MAR THIMOTHIOS CHARITABLE HOSPITAL
,TRISSUR DATED 22.042022 SHOWING THE
DETAILS OF DYALYSIS
