Muraleedharan S. (Muraleedharan Nair) v. Maya J. and Adithya

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed. The Family Court’s order directing maintenance at Rs. 5,500 per month to the wife and daughter is maintained.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muraleedharan S. (Muraleedharan Nair)

Respondents

Maya J.
Adithya (through guardian Maya J.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. D. Kishore

Case Synopsis & Summary

Muraleedharan S. (Muraleedharan Nair) filed RP(FC) No.512 of 2016 challenging the Family Court Pathanamthitta, which by MC 92/2014 directed him to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to his wife Maya J. and their daughter Adithya at Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,500 per month respectively (total Rs. 5,500). The respondents alleged mental and physical cruelty and an extramarital relationship by the petitioner, who allegedly earned Rs. 25,000 as a mahout, yet contested the maintenance claim, asserting the wife’s income from a home-nurse job and chitty business, and that she was living in adultery. He also argued he had to support an older son, his mother, and repay a housing loan, and that his health impeded further liability. The petitioner claimed his actual salary was around Rs. 11,620 and challenged the court’s assessment of his means. The Family Court, after consideration, partly allowed the application by ordering Rs. 5,500/month. The petitioner contended the income proof was insufficient and that maintenance was unwarranted given his liabilities, while the respondents urged the statutory protection of Sec.125 and held that an able-bodied husband must maintain his wife and child. The High Court upheld the Family Court and dismissed the revision petition. The order directing maintenance remains intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

An able-bodied person is statutorily bound to maintain his wife and child.
Section 125 CrPC is conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contended that his actual income and financial obligations were not adequately considered by the Family Court. He admitted the marriage and paternity of the child but claimed the wife works as a home nurse and engages in chitty business; he asserted she might be living in adultery and that his own earnings (allegedly around Rs. 11,620) and liabilities (care for mother, housing loan, and illness) should cap his maintenance liability. He argued the maintenance order was excessive and unsupported by proper income proof; he urged reversal or reduction of the order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued the petitioner is an able-bodied man with undisputed withholding of maintenance; they asserted the husband earns a substantial salary (claimed Rs. 25,000) and should maintain his wife and child per Sec.125 CrPC. They highlighted the wife’s income and the necessity of maintenance for the minor child. They urged that the Family Court’s determination—Rs. 5,500 per month—was just and in keeping with the statute’s objective.

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 bound to maintain his wife and child under Sec.125 CrPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`RPFC NO. 512 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 92/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`PATHANAMTHITTA`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MURALEEDHARAN.S (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR), AGED 43 YEARS,GOKULAM VEEDU, THENGAMAM PO, THENGAMAM MURI,PALLICKAL VILLAGE. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1MAYA.J AGED 37 YEARS, THOTTUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,THENGAMAM MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE.690 522 2ADITHYA AGED 13 YEARS, D/O MAYA J.,THOTTUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,THENGAMAM MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE,(2ND RESPONDENT REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER,1ST RESPONDENT.MAYA J.) ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.D.KISHORE ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 ## **C. S. DIAS, J.** ## **------------------------RP(FC)No.512 of 2016** ## **------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2023 ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.92/2014 of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents – his wife and daughter – at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners in the above application. ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondents had filed the application under Sec.125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 3 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 ‘Code’), inter alia, stating that the first respondent was married to the revision petitioner on 21.4.2000 and in the wedlock the second respondent was born. The revision petitioner used to mentally and physically torture the first respondent and was having extra-marital relationship with other women. Although the revision petitioner was employed as a Mahout in the Devaswom and drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, he refused to maintain the respondents. The respondents require Rs.10,000/- as their maintenance expenses. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner contested the application by filing a written objection. He admitted his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent. It was his defence that the first respondent 4 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 was working earlier working in a cashew factory and is now working as a home nurse and getting a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The first respondent is also doing chitty business and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. He also alleged that the first respondent was living in adultery and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. The revision petitioner is maintaining the older son born in the wedlock. He also has to take care of his mother and repay a housing loan. Moreover, he is suffering from several ailments. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked through her. The revision petitioner and two witnesses were examined as RW1 to 5 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 RW3 and Exts B1 to B10 series and Ext X1 were marked in evidence through them. 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 respondents monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,500/- . 6. It is aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Is there or any illegality, impropriety irregularity in the impugned order ? 6 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent. The respondents’ case is that although the revision petitioner is employed as a Mahout in the Devaswom and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, he has refused to maintain the respondents and has also ill-treated the first respondent. 10. The revision petitioner’s defence is that the first respondent is working as a home nurse, doing chitty business, and is living in adultery. Therefore, he is not liable to maintain her. Furthermore, he is maintaining his older son, looking after his mother, has bodily ailments and also has to repay a housing loan. 11. Even though the revision petitioner has alleged that the first respondent is living in adultery, he has not 7 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 taken any steps to dissolve his marriage. There is no material evidence, other than for his bald assertion, to prove the said aspect. Similarly, he has not established that the first respondent is working as a home nurse. 12. On the contrary, the respondents have alleged that the revision petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, which was denied by him and he stated that he is only earning Rs.11,620/- per month. The fact remains that, the revision petitioner has failed to produce any material to prove his actual salary. Therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against him. 13. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 _(‘Code’ for short)_ , is conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children, who are constrained to leave the 8 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code. 14. It is trite 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. The Family Court, after a thread-bare analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, has concluded that the revision petitioner is liable to maintain his wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month. 16. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find any error or illegality in the conclusions arrived at by the Family Court. The revision petition is meritless and without any substance. 9 RP(FC)No.512 of 2016 In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, he would be entitled for adjustment while paying the arrears as per the impugned order. sks/2.11.23 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE