Kerala High Court
Jishana. K vs Hijas Jafar on 6 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:58816
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. 289 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2018 IN MC NO.42 OF
2016 OF FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
HIJAS JAFAR
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.JAFAR, RESIDING AT CHERUVATH HOUSE,
MAYYANNUR P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 542.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SMT.B.ANUSREE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JISHANA K
AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.ABDULLA T., RESIDING AT KATTIL
HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM, EDACHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE-673 502.
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
SRI.M.BINUMON SEBASTIAN
SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.K.VISWAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 2018
2
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. 460 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2018 IN MC NO.42 OF
2016 OF FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
JISHANA. K
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O ABDULLA.T, KATTIL HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.EDACHERI, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
PIN - 673 502 (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EDACHERI POLICE
STATION)
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.M.BINUMON SEBASTIAN
SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
HIJAS JAFAR
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O JAFAR, CHERUVATH HOUSE, MAYYANNUR.P.O., VATAKARA
TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 542. REP. BY POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOTHER RAZIYA, W/O JAFFAR, AGED 48
YEARS, CHERUVATH HOUSE, MAYYANNUR.P.O., VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 542. (AS PER
I.A.NO.861/2016 , DATED 9.11.2016 WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
VATAKARA POLICE STATION)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 2018
3
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VARGHESE PETER
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 2018
4
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
RP(FC) Nos.289 & 460 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025
ORDER
These revisions are filed against the order dated
25.05.2018 in MC No.42/2016 on the files of Family Court,
Vatakara. RPFC 460/2018 is filed by the petitioner (hereinafter the
parties are mentioned according to their status in the Family
Court) in MC No.42/2016 on the files of Family Court, Vatakara,
challenging the quantum of maintenance. RPFC 289/2018 is filed
challenging the maintenance awarded by the respondent, who is
the husband of the petitioner.
2. Heard.
3. I will consider RPFC No.289/2018 first. The
Family Court as per the impugned order, granted maintenance to
the petitioner @ Rs.8,000/- from the date of the application.
Admittedly, the parties are Muslims. Therefore, in the concluding
portion, it is clearly stated that, the respondent need to pay
maintenance till the benefit under Section 3(1) of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short Act,
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 2018
5
1986), has been paid or till the marriage of the petitioner. Now
the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefits under
Section 3(1) of the Act, 1986 are already paid. If that is the case,
in the impugned order itself, it is clearly stated that he need not
pay the amount.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. The
Family Court considered all the contentions of the respondent and
thereafter, passed the impugned order.
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 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
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 20186
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 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:
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 20187
” 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.”
8. In the light of the above, the principles laid
down by the Apex court, I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order granting maintenance to the petitioner.
9. RPFC No.460/2018 is filed by the wife
challenging the quantum of maintenance. The impugned order
was passed on 25.05.2018. The maintenance awarded is
Rs.8,000/-. Now, about seven years have elapsed after the
impugned order. If there is any change of circumstances, the
petitioner can file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C/146
BNSS.
With the above observation, these revisions can be
disposed of. Therefore, these revisions are disposed of in the
following manner.
2025:KER:58816
RPFC NO.289 & 460 OF 2018
8
1. RPFC No.289/2018 is dismissed.
2. RPFC No.460/2018 is disposed of, granting
liberty to the petitioner to approach the Family
Court, if there is any change of circumstances.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG