Kerala High Court
Manesh M vs Sowmya R on 6 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 59 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2018 IN MC
NO.396 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
MANESH M.
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN PILLAI, MANESH
BHAVAN, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O,
KOLLAM - 691 511.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SMT.BHANU THILAK
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SOWMYA R.,
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. VISWANATHA PILLAI,
VISWAMANDIRAM, KUZHIYAM SOUTH, CHANDANATHOPPE,
P.O KOLLAM - 691 014.
2 ADHITHRI,
D/O SOWMYA.R (MINOR), VISWAMANDIRAM, KUZHIYAM
SOUTH, CHANDANATHOPPE, P.O KOLLAM - 691 014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
SHRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
RPFC No.59 of 2019
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 14.09.2018 in MC No.396/2016 on the file of
the Family Court, Kollam. As per the impugned
order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the
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 for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is working as a helper in Dubai and
he is not in a position to pay Rs.8,000/- to the
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
3
respondents. The counsel also submitted that he is
suffering from some illness also and there is no
chance for getting any other job to the petitioner.
The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that, his information is that the petitioner is now in
Jordan and he is working there with a decent salary.
4. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the respondents. Both sides adduced
evidence before the Family Court as PW1 and CPW1.
Based on the evidence available, the Family Court
found that the petitioner is able to pay maintenance
and the respondents are unable to maintain
themselves. Now, the case of the petitioner is that
he is sick and he is not in a position to pay
maintenance to the respondents. If that is a
subsequent event, the petitioner can approach the
jurisdictional Family Court with appropriate
application under Section 127 Cr.PC / Section 146
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
4
BNSS to vary the order. But, as far as the impugned
order is concerned, I see, no reason to interfere with
the same.
5. 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 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
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
5in 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.”
6. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
6
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.”
7. 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
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
7
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.”
8. Keeping in mind the above principles laid
down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered
opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the
impugned order. There is no merit in this revision.
But, I make it clear that, if there is any change of
circumstances after the impugned order, the
petitioner can file appropriate application before the
jurisdictional Family Court under Section 127 Cr.PC /
RPFC No.59 of 2019
2025:KER:59777
8
Section 146 BNSS.
With the above observation, this Revision
Petition (Family Court) is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE