Kerala High Court
Ali vs Najira on 17 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.311 of 2019
2025:KER:69279
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
RPFC NO. 311 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2018 IN MC
NO.220 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ALI,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMED, PUTHANVEETTL HOUSE,
VATTAMKULAM P.O., EDAPPAL (VIA.), PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 578.
BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NAJIRA,
AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.BAVA, VELAKKADAN HOUSE,
KANHIRAKUNDU, TIRUR P.O., TIRUR VILLAGE, TIRUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 578.
2 SANHA,
AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER NAJIRA,
AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.BAVA, VELAKKADAN HOUSE,
KANHIRAKUNDU, TIRUR P.O., TIRUR VILLAGE, TIRUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 578.
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.311 of 2019
2025:KER:69279
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.311 of 2019
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 25.07.2018 in MC No.220/2015 on the file of
the Family Court, Tirur. As per the impugned order,
the Family Court granted maintenance to the
respondents at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and 4,000/-
respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The marriage and paternity of the child is
not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner is
working as a driver in KSRTC. The 2 nd respondent
child was aged 11 months old at the time of filing the
2025:KER:69279
claim petition. The Family Court granted only an
amount of Rs.4,000/- to the child and an amount of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the wife. The Family Court
considered all the contentions of the petitioner and
thereafter passed the impugned order. The ability of
the petitioner to pay the maintenance and the
inability of the respondents to maintain themselves is
also found by the Family Court. It is a finding of fact
by the Family Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the same invoking the powers of revisional
jurisdiction.
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")
2025:KER:69279
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
2025:KER:69279
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."
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
2025:KER:69279
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."
2025:KER:69279
7. 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 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
2025:KER:69279
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
2025:KER:69279
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."
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
