Kerala High Court
Nisam vs Aseena on 9 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.88 of 2021
2025:KER:67170
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 88 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2020 IN MC
NO.61 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
NISAM
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MYDHEEN KUNJU, KIZHAPARATH
CHERUVILA, NADUVATH CHERRY, PUTHAN CHANTHA P.O,
PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITOINERS:
1 ASEENA
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. ASHRAF, VAZHAPPALLI
PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN 691 003
2 AFIYA-MINOR
AGED 10 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN, ASEENA, 1ST RESPONDENT, VAZHAPPALLI
PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O, KOLLAM
WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 003
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.88 of 2021
2025:KER:67170
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.88 of 2021
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 30.09.2020 in MC No.61/2016 on the file of the
Family Court, Kollam. As per the impugned order,
the Family Court granted maintenance to
respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and 3,000/-
respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The marriage and paternity of the child is
not disputed by the petitioner. The Family Court
found that the petitioner is working in Kerala Metals
2025:KER:67170
and Minerals Limited, Chavara and he is getting
sufficient income. It is also found that the
respondents are unable to maintain themselves. The
quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs. 5,000/-
and 3,000/- respectively. I see no reason to interfere
with the same.
4. 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
2025:KER:67170
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."
2025:KER:67170
5. 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 the derelicts."
6. 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
2025:KER:67170
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."
7. 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
