Anilakumaran Nair v. Ashalatha M.J.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945** ## **RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 196/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ANILAKUMARAN NAIR AGED 76 YEARS S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR,BHAGYASREE, KUTTIYANI,PANTHALACODE P.O.,NOW RESIDING AT CHERUKALARI VEEDU,PANTHALACODE P.O., VATTAPPARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.V.C.SARATH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ASHALATHA M.J., AGED 45 YEARS D/O.JAGADAMMA,BHAGYASREE, KUTTIYANI,PANTHALACODE P.O., VATTAPPARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 028. BY ADV SRI.R.B.RAJESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 2 (Dated this the 16[th] day of November, 2023) **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.196/2014 dated 21.12.2026 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent - his divorced wife - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/- from the date of petition (19.06.2014). 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 (in short, 'Code'), inter-alia, contending that she was married to the revision petitioner on 10.04.1988. The revision petitioner deserted the respondent from 2011. The respondent has no job or income. They have two children born in the wedlock. The respondent is depending on her parents for the livelihood of herself RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 3 and children. The revision petitioner is an Exserviceman drawing a pension of Rs.18,000/-. He is also working in the K.S.F.E., Vattapara Branch and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. He is also owning a mini bus and getting a monthly income of Rs.45,000/- and interest on the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondent is entitled to monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner opposed the application by filing a written objection. He admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the children. He also admitted that he is an Ex-serviceman. It was his case that the children have attained majority and the respondent is working as Data Entry Operator. Actually, the respondent has ousted the revision petitioner from his house. The respondent is earning income from the landed property of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments. He is not RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 4 in a position to maintain the respondent. He is only getting a meager amount as pension and has to look after his aged mother. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked in evidence through her. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 were marked through him in evidence. 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 the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/-. 6. It is assailing the said order; the present revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.V.C.Sarath, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.R.B.Rajesh, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 5 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order ? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. It is also on record that during the pendency of the application, the marriage between the couple was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court. Thus the respondent is the divorced wife of the revision petitioner. 10. It is settled law that divorced wife is also entitled to be maintained by her former husband. 11. The respondent's case was that the revision petitioner is drawing a monthly pension @ Rs.18,000/-, a monthly salary of Rs.16,000/- as a Security Personnel, interest on his fixed deposit @ Rs.10,000/- per month and an income of Rs.35,000/- per month from his tourist vehicles. The respondent produced Exts.P1 to P10 documents to substantiate the above assertions. 12. The revision petitioner's defence was that he RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 6 was only earning a meagre income as pension. The revision petitioner is working as a Data Entry Operator. The children of the couple have attained majority. The revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is not in a position to maintain himself. 13. The Family Court after a meticulous scrutiny of the rival pleadings and the materials placed on record found that the revision petitioner was drawing a monthly pension @ Rs.15,440/-. In addition to the above income it was found that the revision petitioner had, fixed deposits and two commercial tourist vehicles. 14. On the basis of the above materials, the Family Court concluded that the revision petitioner is liable to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent @ Rs.8,000/-. 15. In the celebrated decision in **v. Rajnesh Neha and Anr.** [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 7 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 8 support to the wife and minor children, husband was 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. 18. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record and going through the impugned order, I am of the definite view that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. 19. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is suffering form various ailments and does not have any means to comply with the impugned order. If that be the case, it would be up to the revision petitioner to work out his statutory remedies. 20. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is only liable to be dismissed. RPFC NO. 126 OF 2017 9 Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the parties to work out their statutory remedies. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, he will be entitled to adjust the deposited amount while paying the arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/16.11.23