Muhammed Iqubal v. Fathima Hasna

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 208 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 206/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ``` MALAPPURAM ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/S:` ``` MUHAMMED IQUBAL AGED 33 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, PAYAM KULAYAN, THELAKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 679325 BY ADVS. V.H.JASMINE JESWIN P.VARGHESE REETHU JACOB RAHMATH C.A. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` FATHIMA HASNA AGED 23 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED IQUBAL, KOLTHODI HOUSE, UCHARAKKADAVU P.O, CHEMMANIYOD, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 679326 BY ADV K.VIDYASAGAR ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 29[th] day of November,2023 ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.206/2017 of the Family Court, Malappuram, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent – his wife – monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/from the date of application (08.06.2017) till the date the respondent gets remarried. 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,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/from the revision petitioner. It was her case that, she R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:3:- was married to the revision petitioner on 12.05.2016. The revision petitioner was employed abroad as a lift technician. After the marriage, he harassed the respondent demanding more money. Despite having sufficient means, the revision petitioner has refused to maintain the respondent. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He admitted the marriage; but he contended that he lost his job abroad and he has no means to maintain the respondent. Moreover, he has pronounced talaq and the marriage is dissolved. He also learnt that the respondent had studied a course and has sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the respondent was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 was marked through her. The revision petitioner was examined as RW1. R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:4:- 5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application as observed above. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Smt.V.H. Jasmine, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. K.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on admission. 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. 10. The respondent’s case was that although the revision petitioner was employed abroad as a lift technician, he has refused to maintain her. 11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that he R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:5:- has lost his job abroad and he has no means to maintain himself. He has pronounced talaq and the marriage is severed. Therefore, he is not liable to maintain the respondent. 12. Although the revision petitioner had taken up a contention that he has no means and that the respondent has studied a course and has means to maintain herself, he failed to produce any material to substantiate his assertion. 13. 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. 14. In **Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.** [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon'ble R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:6:- 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. 15. 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, 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. R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:7:- 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. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was aged 26 years at the time of filing the application. There is no material to substantiate that he is suffering from any ailment. Therefore, he is assumed to be an able bodied person. An able bodied person in the year 2017, by no stretch of imagination, would have earned less than Rs.25,000/- per month even by doing physical labour. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the order directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- from the date of application till the date the respondent got remarried, is reasonable and justifiable, warranting no interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. R.P.(FC)No.208/2023 -:8:- 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that the respondent got remarried on 21.02.2021. Therefore, the revision petitioner’s liability to maintain the respondent would only be from 08.06.2017 to 21.02.2021. 19. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials on record and the finding of the Family Court in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity warranting the admission of the revision petition. The revision petition sans merits or substance is only to be dismissed at the threshold. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/29.11.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge