Abdul Sathar v Jasmine

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2023-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed, confirming the Family Court’s order directing maintenance of Rs 4000 per month. The Court notes the interim order fixing 60% of the amount and grants the petitioner time to pay arrears in two instalments on 1.1.2024 and 1.2.2024. If arrears are not deposited within the stipulated period, the respondent is free to execute the impugned order as per law.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; maintenance order upheld with instalment arrears payment schedule.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Sathar

Respondents

Jasmine

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A.V.M. Salahuddeen

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Mansoor B.H.
• Sri S.U. Nazar
• Sri K.V. Sasidharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Sathar v Jasmine is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging a Family Court order directing maintenance of Rs 4000 per month for Jasmine, his wife. The Family Court, Thrissur, consolidated three proceedings—two separate divorce petitions and a decree for recovery of money and past maintenance—arising from the marriage dated 13 July 2011, wherein Jasmine alleged cruelty and desertion and Abdul Sathar contested maintenance with a defense that she had left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. The Family Court found the revision petitioner to be an able-bodied person with a notional income of Rs 15,000 per month and, considering Jasmine’s lack of independent means, ordered payment of Rs 4000 per month from the date of the petition. Abdul Sathar claimed to have earned about Rs 6000 as a hotel waiter and stated Jasmine earned Rs 5000 as a tailor; he failed to adduce material to substantiate a higher income. The Court also dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce after considering the linked proceedings. Abdul Sathar challenged the order in this High Court. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order under Section 125 CrPC or the underlying Family Courts Act provisions, and ultimately dismissed the revision petition, while granting time to pay arrears in instalments and indicating coercive consequences for non-payment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 19(4), Family Courts Act, 1984Sections 498A, 406, read with 34, IPCChapter IX, CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

A statutorily bound maintenance obligation on the able-bodied husband to maintain his wife and child (as cited in Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg)
Section 125 CrPC is intended to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of women.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that though he admitted the marriage, he is unable to maintain the respondent as he earns only about Rs 6000 per month (as a waiter) and the respondent earns about Rs 5000 as a tailor. He asserts he is willing to maintain only if the respondent agrees to resume cohabitation. He submitted that the Family Court erred in imputing a notional income of Rs 15,000 and in directing Rs 4,000 monthly maintenance in light of his actual income and lack of corroborating material. He requests interference to modulate the maintenance amount or set it aside.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent asserts persistent cruelty and desertion by the petitioner and maintains that the petitioner has the means to pay maintenance, pointing to his ability to earn, and seeks enforcement of maintenance at Rs 4000 per month (from filing) and continuation of the order. She emphasizes the petitioner’s failure to support her after the divorce and the need for adequate maintenance, given her lack of independent means.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg	2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that an able-bodied husband is obligated to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 CrPC.

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`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 157 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 55/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` ABDUL SATHAR S/O. MUHAMMADALI HAJI, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PATTIKKARA, KECHERY, CHIRANELLUR. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` JASMINE D/O. VALIYAKATHU VEETTIL MOIDU, MANDALAMKUNNU DESOM, PUNNAYUR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK- 679 562. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 2`** **Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed against the order in M.C. No.55/2013 of the Family Court, Thrissur, directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent – his wife - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- from the date of petition. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondent had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Code’, for short), stating that she was married to the revision petitioner on 13.7.2011. From the first night onwards, the revision petitioner behaved abnormally towards her. He ill-treated the respondent. Due to the matrimonial cruelty that was meted out on her, the respondent was ## **`R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 3`** compelled to file a complaint before the Kunnamkulam Police and a case was registered against the revision petitioner alleging him to have committed offence under Sections 498(A) and 406 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Although the revision petitioner was running a hotel and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, he willfully refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent has no means to maintain herself. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He admitted the marriage and contended that the respondent always wanted to reside in her parental home. She has left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. In September 2012, she deserted the revision petitioner and, thereafter, filed a complaint before the police to justify her action. The revision petitioner is ready to maintain the respondent, if she resumes cohabitation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. ``` R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 4 ``` 4. The respondent had also filed O.P.Nos.184/2013 and 179/2013, seeking a decree of divorce and for a decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments and past maintenance, respectively. 5. The Family Court, consolidated and jointly tried the three proceedings. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked through her. The revision petitioner and a witness were examined as RWs1 and 2 and Ext. B1 was marked in evidence. 6. The Family Court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application, by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- from the date of petition. 7. It is assailing the said order, the revision petition is filed. 8. Heard; Sri.A.V.M.Salahuddeen, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. Mansoor B.H, the learned counsel appearing for the ## **`R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 5`** respondent. 9. Is there any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order? 10. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. 11. The respondent's case was that, the revision petitioner treated her with cruelty and drove her away from the matrimonial home. Despite earning Rs.50,000/per month, he has refused to maintain the respondent. 12. The revision petitioner's defence was that, the respondent is living separately from him without any sufficient cause. She always insisted to live in her parental home. The revision petitioner is ready to maintain the respondent, provided she resumes cohabitation with him. He stated that he was working as a waiter in a hotel in Bangalore and only earning Rs.6000/per month, and the respondent was a tailor by profession and was earning monthly income of Rs.5000/-. ## **`R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 6`** 13. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women, who are constrained to leave the matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code. 14. It is trite law that an able bodied person is statutorily bound to maintain his wife and child. [Read **Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg** [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805]. 15. Even though the revision petitioner has stated that he is ready to resume cohabitation with the respondent, he has not taken any steps in this regard. He has not filed any petition seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 16. On the contrary, the respondent had filed O.P. No.184/2013, against the revision petitioner, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that the revision petitioner treated her with cruelty. ``` R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 7 ``` 17. The Family Court, by the above common order, has decreed the divorce petition and has dissolved the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, as on today, the respondent is the divorced wife of the revision petitioner and again there is no question of resumption of cohabitation 18. In view of the subsequent events, the only question left is whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is reasonable. 19. The respondent’s case is that, the revision petitioner is running a hotel in Bangalore and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. His defence was that, he is only a waiter, earning Rs.6000/- per month and the respondent is a tailor earning Rs.5000/- per month. 20. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not produced any material to substantiate his defence. 21. The Family Court, after considering the fact that the revision petitioner is an able bodied person and that ## **`R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 8`** the respondent has no means, fixed the revision petitioner’s notional income @ Rs.15,000/- per month, and has directed him to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- per month. 22. On the anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials placed on record, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court by exercising its revisional powers under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The revision petition is meritless and without any substance. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Family Court. Nonetheless, as this Court has passed an interim order directing the revision petitioner to pay 60% of the amount ordered by the Family Court, I am of the view that the revision petitioner has to be granted a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance. Hence, the revision ``` R.P(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2016 9 ``` petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears of maintenance, as per the impugned order, in two instalments falling on 1.1.2024 and 1.2.2024. If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the arrears within the stipulated time period, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the impugned order in accordance with law. **SD/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm7/11/2023