Kerala High Court
P.Y. Ahammed vs P.Y. Salma on 4 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 IN MC NO.200 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
P.Y. AHAMMED
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O YUSUF, PUTTAN HOUSE THACHANADI,
PUTHUKKODE, PALAKKAD
BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
P.Y. SALMA
AGED 51 YEARS
D/O YUSUF, AISWARYA MANZIL THACHANADI,
PUTHUKKODE, PALAKKAD - 678 687
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.513 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated
31.07.2018 in MC No.200/2016 of Family Court, Palakkad. As
per the above order, the Family Court granted maintenance to
the respondent at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. Aggrieved
by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The marriage is not disputed. Moreover the
petitioner is remarried. That itself is a reason for the separate
residence of the respondent. As far as the quantum of
maintenance is concerned, the Family Court granted only an
amount of Rs.4,500/- to the respondent. The petitioner is a
driver by profession. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner lost his job. Whatever that may be, he was
aged only 51 at the time of filing the claim petition. If there is
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
3
any change of circumstances, the petitioner can approach the
Family Court with appropriate application under Section 127
Cr.P.C/Section 146 of BNSS. As far as the impugned order is
concerned, there is nothing to interfere with the same.
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
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
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
4
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.
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
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 20185
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.
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. Keeping in mind the above principle of the Apex
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
6
Court, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to
interfere with the impugned order.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence,
dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:58093
RPFC NO. 513 OF 2018
7
APPENDIX OF RPFC 513/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
04/10/2016.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 DATED 29/11/2017.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
15/05/2013.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NON REMARRIAGE
CERTIFICATED DATED 27/07/2015.
ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31/07/2018 OF THE HONBLE FAMILY COURT,
PALAKKAD IN MC.C.NO.200/2016.