High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-22Revision petition dismissed

Raju Thomas v. Valsamma Joseph

Case / Petition Number:RPFC No. 192 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed. The High Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the impugned order and upholds the Family Court’s decision directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 2,500 per month. If any amount was deposited pursuant to interim orders, the petitioner may adjust it against the balance due as per the impugned order.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raju Thomas

Respondents

Valsamma Joseph

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Ramesh Chander (Senior Counsel)
• Aneesh Joseph
• Dennis Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• Liji J. Vadakedom

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging MC No.2/2013 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, directing the petitioner, Raju Thomas, to pay maintenance to his wife, Valsamma Joseph, Rs. 2,500 per month from the date of petition. The respondent-wife had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 7,500 per month, asserting she had no independent income, was living apart since 2008, and that she had three children to support; she is a graduate nurse employed abroad and allegedly mentally ill. The petitioner admitted the marriage and three children but contended the wife is living separately without sufficient cause and he has to maintain the children. He claimed a monthly income of about Rs. 24,000 after deductions, while the wife asserted he earned Rs. 35,000 and had no independent income of her own. The Family Court consolidated three proceedings—including maintenance, a divorce petition, and a claim for return of money and gold—and ultimately ordered Rs. 2,500 per month for the wife. The revision petition argues illegality/impropriety in the order. The High Court relies on Rajnesh v. Neha, Captain Kaushal and Bhuwan Mohan Singh to reaffirm maintenance as a social-justice remedy and to discuss notional income concepts. It finds no illegality and dismisses the petition, upholding the Family Court’s order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19(4)Constitution of India Article 15(3)Constitution of India Article 39

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance is a measure of social justice (supported by Kaushal)
Husband's sacrosanct duty to provide maintenance to wife and minor children
Courts may use notional income / guesswork to determine quantum of maintenance
Social justice rationale under maintenance laws to prevent destitution and vagrancy

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the Family Court erred in fixing maintenance. He submits that the respondent-wife, though employed abroad as a graduate nurse, has independent means and has not established an absolute necessity for maintenance from him. He has disclosed an actual monthly income after deductions of around Rs. 24,000, not Rs. 35,000, and is responsible for three children in addition to his wife. He argues the maintenance order of Rs. 2,500 per month is excessive in light of his means and that the wife’s alleged mental illness and living apart should have been carefully weighed against her claim. He asserts the court did not properly appraise evidence or consider alternatives, such as the wife’s potential income and the possibility of restitution of conjugal rights, and thus misapplied statutory principles. He seeks interference under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that she has no independent income and is unable to sustain herself, particularly due to being employed abroad as a nurse and allegedly suffering mental illness. She argues she is living separately with no sufficient cause and that the husband has neglected his duty to provide financial support for her and the three children. The respondent emphasizes that maintenance under Sec.125 CrPC is a social-justice remedy designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and that the husband’s income must be viewed against his obligation to maintain the wife and children; the amount fixed should reflect the standard of living enjoyed during marriage and the wife’s lack of independent means.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Used to reinforce the social-justice rationale of maintenance and the entitlement of dependants to financial support under Sec.125 CrPC.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.	(1978) 4 SCC 70	Positive	Grounds the view that maintenance is a measure of social justice protecting women and children under constitutional directives.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.	(2015) 6 SCC 353	Positive	Affirms that Sec.125 CrPC aims to ameliorate hardship of wives/children and that income may be reasonably imputed for quantum.

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 Raju Thomas v. Valsamma Joseph 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. 192 OF 2015** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 2/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** RAJU THOMAS AGED 47 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT ANDUMALIL HOUSE, KOTTODY DESOM, KALLAR VILLAGE, KOTTODY.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** VALSAMMA JOSEPH AGED 45 YEARS D/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PATHICKAL HOUSE, MATTKKARA KARA, KARIMPANI.P.O., AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER JOSEPH, -DO- -DO- AS HER FRIEND AS SHE IS UNSOUND MIND. BY ADV SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM 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. 192 OF 2015 2 ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.2/2013 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent – his wife - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- 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 Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”), seeking monthly maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner @ Rs.7,500/- per month. It was her case that she was married to the revision petitioner on 20.02.1997. Three children were born in the wedlock. The revision petitioner refused to maintain the respondent since 2008. She has no job or income. The revision petitioner is a school teacher and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Hence, the application. RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 3 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection denying the allegations in the application. He admitted the marriage as well as the paternity of the children. He contended that the respondent was living separately without any sufficient cause. He is only earning a monthly salary of Rs.24,000/- after deductions. The three children are in his custody and he has to maintain them. The respondent is a graduate Nurse and is employed abroad. She is also a mentally ill person. She is living separately without sufficient reason. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The revision petitioner had also filed O.P. No.654/2012 against the respondent and the respondent filed OP No.23/2013 against the revision petitioner, seeking a decree of divorce and a decree for return of money and gold ornaments, respectively. 5. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried all the three proceedings. 6. In the trial, the respondent examined PWs1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.X1 to X1(ab) were marked in RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 4 evidence. The revision petitioner got himself examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on his side. 7. The Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and materials placed on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/-. 8. It is aggrieved by the said order; the revision petition is filed. 9. Heard; Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Liji J.Vadakkedom, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 11. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. He also concedes to the fact that three children were born in the wedlock. 12. The respondent's case in the application was that although the revision petitioner was earning a monthly RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 5 income of Rs.35,000/- from his avocation as a Teacher, he refused to maintain her. She does not have a means to maintain herself. 13. The revision petitioner's defence was that the respondent was living separately from him without any sufficient cause. He is looking after his three children born in the wedlock. The respondent is a Nurse and is employed abroad. She is also a mentally ill person even prior to their marriage. The respondent is not entitled for maintenance. 14. On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that even though the revision petitioner contended that the respondent was living separately from him, he failed to produce any material to substantiate that he made an effort to resume cohabitation or filed a petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, he filed O.P.No.654/2012, for a decree of divorce alleging that the respondent is suffering from unsoundness of mind. Therefore, his contention that the respondent is living separately without sufficient cause is RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 6 untenable and incorrect. The Family Court, dismissed O.P.No.654/2012, by the same common judgment, on the ground that the case put forth by the revision petitioner is incorrect. 15. 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. ## 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 RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 7 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. 18. 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 while fixing the quantum of maintenance. 19. In the case on hand the revision petitioner admits that he was earning monthly salary of Rs.24,000/- after all statutory deductions. The respondent - his wife - is entitled to live the same status and standard of living as that of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has not proved that the respondent has any income of her own. Therefore, the impugned order directing the revision RPFC NO. 192 OF 2015 8 petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- is justifiable and reasonable. 20. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and the law on the point, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petition is meritless and is only 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/22.11.2023