Kerala High Court
Varun Gopinath vs Keerthana J.K on 9 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:67183
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. 242 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2021 IN MC NO.389
OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
VARUN GOPINATH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, PULICKAL VEEDU,
PUNUKKANNOOR, ALUMMOODU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV
SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KEERTHANA J.K
AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. JAYADHARAN UNNITHAN, AMBADI,
RADIO JUNCTION, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691504.
2 ABHIMANYU- MINOR,
AGED 5 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, KEERTHANA J.K., AGED 28
YEARS, D/O. JAYADHARAN UNNITHAN, AMBADI, RADIO
JUNCTION, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ (R1 and R2)
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) (R1 and R2)
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON (R1 and R2)
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ (R1 and R2)
SMT.SREEDEVI S. (R1 and R2)
SHRI.MOHAMED SHEHARAN (R1 and R2)
SHRI.DINOOP P.D. (R1 and R2)
SHRI.SANJITH JOHNSON (R1 and R2)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67183
RPFC NO.242 OF 2021
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
RP (FC) No.242 of 2021
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated
13.04.2021 in MC No.389/2018 on the files of the Family Court,
Kollam. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the wife and child @ Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The Family Court found that, the petitioner is able to
pay maintenance to the respondents and the respondents are
unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court also found
that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons. The
Family Court fixed the quantum of maintenance @ Rs.8,000/-
and Rs.5,000/-. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the
above finding of fact by the Family Court invoking the revisional
jurisdiction.
4. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to
protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their
2025:KER:67183
RPFC NO.242 OF 2021
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
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:67183
RPFC NO.242 OF 2021
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 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."
Keeping in mind the above principles of the Apex Court, I
am of the considered opinion that, there is nothing to interfere
2025:KER:67183
RPFC NO.242 OF 2021
with the impugned order.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence,
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
