Kerala High Court
Shiji vs Maheswari.S on 24 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.24 of 2024
1
2025:KER:71598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 24 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2023 IN
MC NO.383 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER:
SHIJI
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O WILSON, SHIJI BHAVAN, VALLAKATHINVILA,
KAVUMOOLA, KARIPOOR.P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
BY ADV SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
MAHESWARI.S., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O SHIJI.W.,
SHIJI BHAVAN, VALLAKATHINVILA, KAVUMOOLA,
KARIPOOR.P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.24 of 2024
2
2025:KER:71598
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.24 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 07.09.2023 in MC No.383/2018 on the file of
the Family Court, Nedumangad. As per the
impugned order, the Family Court granted
maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Heard.
3. Admittedly, the marriage is not disputed.
The Family Court found that the petitioner is able to
pay maintenance to the respondent and the
respondent is unable to survive. Counsel for the
2025:KER:71598
petitioner submitted that the quantum of
maintenance awarded by the Family Court is
excessive and the petitioner is only an auto driver
and he is not getting sufficient amount to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. I
cannot agree with the same. If an auto driver is not
able to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per
month, he should find out some other job and pay
maintenance to his wife. I see no reason to interfere
with the same. There is no merit in this revision
petition.
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
2025:KER:71598
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
2025:KER:71598
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 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."
2025:KER:71598
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."
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
2025:KER:71598
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 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
2025:KER:71598
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
2025:KER:71598
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
