High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-22Revision petition dismissed; impugned order mai...

Abdul Sathar P. v. Jareena P.V and Maimoonath (minor) through mother Jareena P.V.

Case / Petition Number:RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed; the impugned Family Court order directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000 per month to each respondent is sustained. If any amount was deposited under interim orders, the petitioner may adjust it against the balance due under the impugned order.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; impugned order maintained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Sathar P.

Respondents

Jareena P.V.
Maimoonath (minor) represented by mother Jareena P.V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Sri. N. M. James

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K. Ashis
• Sri. G. Sreekumar Chelur

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Kannur Family Court order in MC 117/2014 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and their minor daughter. The respondents filed under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month each, contending that Abdul Sathar P. deserted them on 01.01.2001, and that despite his earnings abroad (allegedly around Rs. 1,00,000 per month) he refused to maintain them. Abdul Sathar admitted the marriage to the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent, but alleged that the marriage was irretrievably broken because of the first respondent’s mental depression and that he has since remarried, having two children in his current wedlock; he also argued that after 13 years of separation his liability should be limited given his present income (about Rs. 14,000 per month) from labourer work. The Family Court partly allowed the application, awarding Rs. 6,000 per month to each. The High Court, relying on social-justice jurisprudence, notional-income concepts, and assessment of evidence (notably the unproduced/untested Ext.R1 salary certificate), upheld the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition. The court underscored the respondents’ entitlement to maintenance and declined to interfere with the Family Court’s calculation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance is a social-justice measure to protect dependants (wife and children).
Courts may resort to notional income/guesswork to determine income for maintenance when actual evidence is lacking or unreliable.
Constitutional underpinnings: Article 15(3) read with Article 39 support maintenance obligations toward women and children.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the marriage with the first respondent is strained due to mental depression and is irretrievably broken; he has remarried and has two children with his present wife, and his present income is modest (about Rs. 14,000 per month) as a labourer; he argues that the maintenance claim is unsustainable given long separation (over 13 years) and lack of credible evidence of high earnings (Ext.R1 salary certificate from Royal Roastery, Dubai showing 1,000 UAE Dirhams monthly, which was not attested and hence not admitted). He asserts that the notional income doctrine should not be misused to ply the respondents with maintenance obligations without reliable evidence, and that the impugned order is disproportionate to his actual means.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert desertion and unmet financial needs, highlighting that the petitioner earns substantial sums abroad and has remarried, living in affluence. They rely on the application under Section 125 CrPC and the petitioner’s alleged income (1,00,000 monthly) to justify maintenance for the wife and minor daughter, stressing that delay in filing (13 years) does not absolve the husband of liability. They emphasize the petitioner’s refusal to testify and to produce a credible salary certificate, arguing that the Family Court rightly assessed maintenance based on available evidence and the petitioner’s means, and that the order recognizes social justice obligations toward dependants.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Supreme Court's view that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a social-justice measure to support dependants; cited to reinforce the welfare objective of maintenance.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.	(1978) 4 SCC 70	Positive	Maintenance is a social-justice mechanism protecting women and children under constitutional directives; used to justify maintenance obligations.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.	(2015) 6 SCC 353	Positive	Section 125 CrPC conceived to ameliorate the hardship of wives/children; husband's duty to earn and provide support.

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 Abdul Sathar P. v. Jareena P.V and Maimoonath (minor) through mother Jareena P.V. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 117/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ABDUL SATHAR P. AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED P.V, PULIKKAL HOUSE, VAYAPRAM KANNADIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR -670 604, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SAKEENA SATHAR, D/O.ABOONNI, AGED 34 YEARS PULIKKAL HOUSE, VAYAPRAM, KANNADIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.N.M.JAMES ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 JAREENA P.V, D/O.PARI K., AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE KARAYAP P.O, CHELERI, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANUR -670 604. 2 MAIMOONATH DO.ABDUL SATHAR AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER JAREENA P.V., D/O.PARI K., AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, KARAYAP P.O, CHELERI, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670604 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ASHIS SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 2 ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.117/2014 of the Family Court, Kannur, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondents – his wife and daughter - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.6,000/- each from the date of petition (22.03.2014). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts:** 2. The respondents had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/- each. It was their case that the 1[st] respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 05.08.1993. The 2[nd] respondent was born in their wedlock. The revision petitioner deserted the respondent since 01.01.2001. The revision petitioner is employed abroad and is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. Despite the revision petitioner having RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 3 sufficient means, he has refused to maintain the respondents. The respondents have learnt that the revision petitioner had earlier contracted three marriages. Now after the separation with the 1[st] respondent, the revision petitioner has contracted a subsequent marriage and is living with that lady. The respondents are entitled to maintenance. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner had filed a written objection, through his power of attorney holder, his present wife, denying the allegations in the application. He admitted his marriage with the 1[st] respondent and the paternity of the 2[nd] respondent. It was his defence that the 1[st] respondent was suffering from mental depression and was incapable to continue with the marriage. Since their marriage was irretrievably broken, the revision petitioner has contracted a subsequent marriage with his power of attorney holder and they have two children born in their wedlock. The respondents have approached the Family Court after lapse of more RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 4 than 13 years after the separation. The revision petitioner is only employed as a labourer and is earning a monthly income equivalent to Rs.14,000/-. His present income is insufficient to maintain his present wife, his children in the present marriage and his aged parents. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the 1[st] respondent was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner got his power of attorney holder examined as RW1 and marked Ext.R1 salary certificate. 5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application, by directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents @ Rs.6,000/- each per month. 6. It is aggrieved by the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.T.Madhu., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.G. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 5 respondents. 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the 1[st] respondent and the paternity of the 2[nd] respondent. 10. The respondents' case in the application was that although the revision petitioner had sufficient means by earning an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from his employment abroad, he refused to maintain them. They have no means to sustain themselves. Therefore, they require a monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- each. It was also their case that the revision petitioner had contracted another marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1[st] respondent. 11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that the 1[st] respondent is suffering from mental depression and the marriage was irretrievably broken. Therefore, he has contracted a second marriage and has two children in their wedlock. Since the respondents have filed the RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 6 present application only after thirteen years of separation, he is not liable to pay any amount. Moreover, he is only earning an equivalent amount of Rs.14,000/per month, which is insufficient to meet the expenses of his present wife, children and parents. 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, 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. RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 7 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 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. Indisputably, the revision petitioner did not mount the box. It was his power of attorney holder, his present wife, who gave evidence as RW1. She produced Ext.R1 salary certificate issued by the Managing Director of Royal Roastery, Dubai, which shows that the revision petitioner was earning a monthly income of 1000 UAE Dirhams. As the certificate was not attested by the Indian Mission Abroad, the Family Court declined to RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 8 admit the certificate on record. RW1 was totally unaware of the facts that transpired between the revision petitioner and the respondents during their period of cohabitation. 16. 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. 17. The revision petitioner was aged 48 years at the time of filing of the application. He has admitted that he was in gulf for a considerable period. He has also contracted another marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1[st] respondent. All these factors show that the revision petitioner was living in affluent circumstances. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the respondents. Moreover, he has refused to mount the witness box and let in oral evidence or produce an authenticated salary certificate. Hence, I am of the definite view that the finding of the Family Court that the revision petitioner was having sufficient income RPFC NO. 411 OF 2015 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** to maintain the respondents by paying monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.6,000/- each is only reasonable and justifiable. There is no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.The revision petition is meritless 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/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/22.11.23