Kerala High Court
Binoj vs Jasmin Mary on 9 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC NO. 247 OF 2023 1
2025:KER:75016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 247 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2023 IN MC NO.38 OF
2021 OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
BINOJ
AGED 35 YEARS
CHERUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTTOM.P.O. THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587
BY ADVS.
SHRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JASMIN MARY
AGED 37 YEARS
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAVYAL, MUTTOM.P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587
2 RENESME SARA BINOJ (MINOR),
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O. BINOJ, AGED 8 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHELAVYAL, MUTTOM.P.O., THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685587. REPRESENTED BY JASMIN MARY,
D/O. THOMAS, AGED 37, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAVYAL,
MUTTOM.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 247 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:75016
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
RPFC NO. 247 OF 2023
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated
25.03.2023 in M.C No.38/2021 on the files of the Family Court,
Thodupuzha. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has no source to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- to the wife and child. The counsel submitted that, his
income is only Rs.13,500/- per month. It is further submitted that
the petitioner is complying with the interim order passed by this
Court, by which this Court had directed the petitioner to pay
maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and
Rs.3,000/-. It is further contended that the Family Court has not
2025:KER:75016
considered the contention of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supported the impugned order and submitted that the Family Court
had considered all the contentions, and thereafter the impugned
order is passed.
5. This Court considered all the contentions of the
petitioner and the respondents. The marriage and paternity of the
child is not disputed. At the time of filing the claim petitioner, the
petitioner was aged 35 years. He is an able body man. Even his
income is only Rs.13,500/-, he has to find out some other source to
maintain his wife and child. The Family Court found that the 1 st
respondent wife is living separately for sufficient reasons. These
are findings of facts by the Family Court. This Court cannot
interfered with the same invoking the revisional jurisdiction.
6. 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
2025:KER:75016
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 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 interpretation out of two
2025:KER:75016
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 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
2025:KER:75016
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 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."
2025:KER:75016
10. Keeping in mind the above principles 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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 09.10.2025
Judgment dictated 10.10.2025
Judgment uploaded 10.10.2025
