Jacqulin V.E vs Martin K.Dominic
2025 Latest Caselaw 9293 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9293 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

Jacqulin V.E vs Martin K.Dominic on 29 September, 2025

Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                         2025:KER:72802
RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

                                1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947

                      RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 IN MC NO.48 OF 2018 OF

FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            JACQULIN V.E.
            AGED 32 YEARS
            W/O.MARTIN K.DOMINIC, VAVAKKATT HOUSE,
            POLLETHAI (P.O.), ALAPUZHA.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.B.BIPIN
            SRI.V.M.JACOB


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            MARTIN K.DOMINIC
            AGED 40 YEARS
            S/O.DOMINIC K.V., KARAKKAT HOUSE, CHETHI (P.O.),
            ALAPUZHA, PIN- 688 530.



     THIS    REV.PETITION(FAMILY      COURT)    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION    ON   29.09.2025,   THE     COURT    ON   THE    SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:72802
RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

                                  2




                    P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------
                     R.P.F.C. No.163 of 2021
              ----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 29th day of September, 2025


                              ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the order dated

24.03.2021 in MC No.48/2018 of Family Court, Alappuzha. The

petitioner filed MC No.48/2018 claiming maintenance under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent.

2. The brief facts in the petition are as follows:

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on

14-01-2012 at St. Augustine's Church as per Christian religious

rites and ceremonies. Due to cruelties of respondent, petitioner

filed a complaint before the JFCM-1 Alappuzha under the

provisions of DV Act and an O.P.433/2016 for return of gold and

money. Respondent filed an O.P.762/2015 for divorce. All the

petitions were compromised and as per compromise respondent 2025:KER:72802 RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

agreed to pay maintenance @ Rs.3000/- only to the daughter

born to them. Since their marital relation is existing, petitioner

is entitled to get maintenance from respondent. Petitioner has no

job or source of income. Hence she is living under the care and

protection of her parents. Respondent has neglected pay

regularly the maintenance to minor child. In the circumstances,

the petitioner seeks a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and

direct the salary disbursing authority to realise the same from

the salary of the respondent. Hence the petition.

2. The respondent filed an objection disputing the

averments in the petition. Before the Family Court, the

petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and the respondent was

also examined as RW1. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side

of the petitioner and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked on the side of

the respondent. After going through the evidence and

documents, the Family Court found that the petitioner is not

entitled maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this revision

petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even

though notice is issued to the respondent, there is no 2025:KER:72802 RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

appearance.

4. This Court perused the impugned order and the

available records. A perusal of the impugned order would show

that the Family Court dismissed the claim petition of the

petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. mainly for the reason that

there is Ext.P2 compromise decree in which the petitioner had

relinquished her right of maintenance. The Family Court had

taken note of the fact that the respondent paid some amount to

the petitioner in bulk and hence the petitioner cannot file a

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. I cannot agree with the above finding of the Family

Court. Even if an agreement by which the right to get

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is relinquished, if there is

any change of circumstances, the wife can approach the Family

Court with an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also

settled position that a statutory right under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

cannot be diluted by executing an agreement between the

parties. In such circumstances, I cannot agree with the finding

arrived at by the Family Court. Since the respondent is not

appearing in this revision petition, I think an opportunity should 2025:KER:72802 RPFC NO. 163 OF 2021

be given to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any.

Thereafter the Family Court can be directed to reconsider the

matter in accordance with law.

Therefore, this revision petition is allowed with following

directions:

1. The order dated 24.03.2021 in MC No.48/2018 of

Family Court, Alappuzha is set aside and MC

No.48/2018 is restored.

2. The Family Court, Alappuzha will give an

opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent to

adduce further evidence, if any. I make it clear that

no denovo trial is necessary.