High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-23Revision petition dismissed; impugned order mai...

A. Asees v. Aayina Amina and P.P.K. Rahmath

Case / Petition Number:RPFC No.203 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.4,000 per month to the minor, with a directive that any interim deposits can be adjusted against the balance due as per the impugned order.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; impugned order maintained directing Rs.4,000 per month maintenance.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Asees

Respondents

Aayina Amina
P.P.K. Rahmath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri J.R Prem Navaz
• Sri P.T.Sheeji sh
• Sri J.R Prem Navaz
• Sri P.T.SheeJish

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri V. Binoy Ram

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court revision petition challenges the Family Court, Thalassery, order in MC No.160/2016 directing the revision petitioner, A. Asees, to pay maintenance to his minor daughter, Aayina Amina, at Rs.4,000 per month from the date of petition (27 July 2016). The minor had approached under Section 125 CrPC, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000, asserting the father earned Rs.80,000 per month in the Gulf and refused support. The petitioner admits paternity but contends that his wife deserted him without cause and that his mother-in-law is mentally ill, leaving him with a meagre income as a coolie (about Rs.8,000 per month) and responsibilities to three children from a first marriage. He did not lead evidence at the Family Court; the court nonetheless found the respondent minor’s inability to self-support and, applying notional income concepts, fixed Rs.4,000 per month, based on the uncontroverted testimony of the respondent. The Family Court’s order was upheld by the Kerala High Court, which relied on Supreme Court authority such as Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr; Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal; and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, underscoring maintenance as a social-justice entitlement. The court held there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition, reiterating the protective aim of maintenance provisions for dependants."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19(4)Article 15(3) of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 39 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance as a social justice measure to protect wives and minor children
Sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to wife and children
Courts may rely on notional income/estimate where actual income is not proven to determine maintenance
Maintenance is aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy of dependants

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that he has admitted paternity and is prepared to maintain his daughter, but his financial capacity is constrained. He states he works as a coolie and earns around Rs.8,000 per month, while supporting aged parents and three children from a prior marriage for whom he pays Rs.3,500 each. He asserts that his wife deserted him without cause and that the respondent’s mother is mentally ill, creating instability. He argues that the respondent’s case was supported by PW1 in the Family Court but that the petitioner did not lead evidence to prove his actual income. He contends the Family Court erred by imputing a notional income of at least Rs.20,000 per month without a sound evidentiary basis and by fixing Rs.4,000 as maintenance, which is excessive given his means. He submits that Sec.125 CrPC is remedial, and quantum must be proportionate to actual means; thus the revision petition should be allowed to reduce or set aside the order or remand for proper income assessment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends the minor child cannot support herself and is dependent on the father’s earnings. She emphasizes paternity and the father’s obligation to provide maintenance under Sec.125 CrPC. The minor has no independent income; the guardian mother (Rahmath) testified as PW1 supporting the need for maintenance, while the petitioner offered no evidence to counter the claim. The respondent urges that Rs.4,000 per month is reasonable and protective of the child’s welfare, aligning with the court’s power to determine appropriate maintenance and reflecting social justice principles enshrined in Supreme Court precedents cited (Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr; Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal; Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena). The guardians argue that the child’s welfare necessitates ongoing support given the father’s means and obligations.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Cited to illustrate that maintenance laws serve social justice and protect dependants.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.	(1978) 4 SCC 70	Positive	Cited to support the view that maintenance is a social justice measure protecting women and children.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.	(2015) 6 SCC 353	Positive	Cited to reinforce that Sec.125 CrPC aims to ameliorate hardship and ensure support for wife and minor children.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A. Asees v. Aayina Amina and P.P.K. Rahmath and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 RPFC NO. 203 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 160/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`THALASSERY`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` A.ASEES S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 46 YEARS,RESIDING AT AREEKKANDY HOUSE,KOOLIBAZAR, P.O. VADAKKUMBAD,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN - 670 105. BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` AAYINA AMINA,AGED 1.5 YEARS, D/O. A. ASEES,RESIDING AT NARAVOOR ROAD,KUTHUPARAMBA P.O., PIN - 670 643 (MINOR)REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER P.P.K.RAHMATH ,D/O. MOIDU, RESIDING AT NARAVOOR ROAD,KUTHUPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 643. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 ----------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.160/2016 of the Family Court, Thalassery, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent - his minor daughter - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,000/- from the date of petition (27.7.2016). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court. 3 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondent had filed the application under Sec.125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”), seeking monthly maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner @ Rs.6,000/-. It was her case that she is a minor daughter born in the wedlock between her mother and the revision petitioner. Although the revision petitioner was employed in Gulf and was earning Rs.80,000/- per mensum, he refused to maintain the respondent. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection denying the allegations in the application. It was his defence that the mother of the respondent – his wife – 4 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 deserted him without any sufficient cause. The mother of the respondent is also a person of unsound mind. The revision petitioner is working as a coolie and only earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He has aged parents and three children born in his first marriage and he is paying maintenance allowance to them. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the mother of the respondent was examined as PW1. The revision petitioner did not let in any evidence. 5. The Family Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance 5 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 allowance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.J.R Prem Navaz, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.Binoy Ram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Is there or any illegality, impropriety irregularity in the impugned order? 10. The revision petitioner has admitted the paternity of the respondent. The respondent’s case was that although the revision petitioner was employed in Gulf and was earning Rs.80,000/- per month, he has refused to maintain her. 6 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that the mother of the respondent – his wife - was suffering from mental illness and she was living separately from him without sufficient cause. He was only working as a coolie and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Moreover, he is also paying maintenance allowance to his three children in the first marriage @ Rs.3,500/each. Therefore, he does not have any means to maintain the respondent. 12. In the celebrated decision in **Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr** . [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, 7 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. 13. In **Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.** [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the provision of maintenance is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children, who fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and reinforced by Article 39. 14. In **Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.** [(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home, so that some 8 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children and the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 15. It is well settled in a plethora of judgments that the Courts are permitted to do some guesswork in arriving at the notional income of the husband/father and fixing the quantum of maintenance. 16. Indisputably, the respondent is the minor daughter of the revision petitioner. She has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Even if the 9 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 revision petitioner is only a coolie worker, he is bound to maintain the respondent. As the application was filed in the year 2016, it is assumed that the revision petitioner was earning at least Rs.20,000/- per month. Moreover, the revision petitioner has not let in any evidence to corroborate his pleadings. Mere pleading is not proof. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court, directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance, based on the uncontroverted testimony of the respondent, is only reasonable and justifiable. I do not find any error in the said fixation. 17. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and the law on the point, I do 10 R.P (FC) No.203 of 2017 not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court 0 under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is only liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, he would be entitled to adjust the deposited amount, while paying the balance amount due, as per the impugned order. sd/- sks/23.11.2023 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**