Rasheed Mon v. Shemeera & Fathima Sherin
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is dismissed. The High Court found no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the Family Court’s order under Section 125 CrPC and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rasheed Mon
Respondents
- Shemeera
- Fathima Sherin
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K.I.Sageer Muhammed Yasil
Counsels for Respondents
- • Chacko C A
- • C.M. Charisma (K/424/2002)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, challenging an order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C. No.39/2020 under Section 125(1) CrPC. The respondents, Shemeera (wife) and her daughter Fathima Sherin (then 5th standard student aged 13), had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance from Rasheed Mon, who deserted them in December 2019. The Family Court, after hearing, directed Rasheed Mon to pay Rs.7,000 per month to the wife and Rs.5,000 per month to the daughter from the date of the petition (21-01-2020). Rasheed Mon contended that he could not maintain them, claiming he had no steady employment and that the wife’s income was Rs.10,000/month while the older daughter alone earned about Rs.25,000/month; he also faced a lack of proof of incapacity to work. The respondents argued Rasheed Mon’s responsibility under Section 125 CrPC, especially given the social justice aims of maintenance laws. The High Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, upheld the statutory duty of a husband to provide maintenance and noted that the petitioner failed to establish an inability to earn or to rebut the evidence of financial capacity. Ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no illegality found in the Family Court’s order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Maintenance is a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependants (wife and children).
- Sacrosanct duty of husband to provide financial support to wife and minor children.
- Courts are permitted to do some guesswork in fixing the quantum of maintenance.
- A husband who is able-bodied must earn money and cannot avoid obligation solely on grounds of lack of formal employment.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The revision petitioner contends that he is not in a position to maintain the respondents due to lack of a reliable source of income. He asserts that the first respondent is a tailor earning about Rs.10,000 per month and that their elder daughter is employed with monthly earnings around Rs.25,000. He argues that he has no job or income and that the Family Court erred in fixing quantum without credible material proving his capacity to pay. He also maintains that the wife is living separately without sufficient cause and that the maintenance order is without proper basis, warranting interference under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the petitioner deserted them in December 2019 and has a substantial earning capacity (claimed as Rs.50,000/month as a civil sub-contractor). They emphasize the statutory duty to provide maintenance and rely on established jurisprudence to show that maintenance is a social justice measure to protect wife and child from destitution. They contend the petitioner failed to prove his incapacity to earn and that the Family Court correctly assessed the need for relief and its quantum, taking into account the income and standard of living of both parties.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. | 2020 (6) KHC 1 | Positive | The Supreme Court’s decision is cited to underscore that maintenance laws serve social justice objectives to prevent destitution and provide recourse to dependants. |
| Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors. | (1978) 4 SCC 70 | Positive | Cited to reinforce that maintenance provisions are a social justice mechanism protecting women and children. |
| Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. | (2015) 6 SCC 353 | Positive | Cited for the principle that Section 125 CrPC is meant to ameliorate financial suffering and that an able-bodied husband must contribute. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Rasheed Mon v. Shemeera & Fathima Sherin and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.