R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015

1 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 ## **`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. 368 OF 2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 392/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA REVISION PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` BINU AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SAMUEL, THEKKUVILA VEEDU, PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANADU NORTH, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER THANKAMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.SAMUEL, THEKKUVILA VEEDU, PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORNADU NORTH, KOLLAM ``` ``` BY ADV SMT.M.A.JINSA MOL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` BINCY AGED 37 YEARS D/O.BABY, KANAPPALLIL, PANDITHITTA, THALAVOOR, PATHANAPURAM ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015** **----------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.392/2013 of the Family Court, Chavara, ordering the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- to the respondent from the date of petition (30.12.2013). 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 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 3 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 “Code”), seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/- from the revision petitioner. It was her case that she was married to the revision petitioner on 30.12.2007. They have a child born in the wedlock. The respondent was driven away from the matrimonial home and the revision petitioner has refused to maintain her. The revision petitioner was working in Gulf and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He was also earning Rs.10,000/- per month from other sources. The respondent has no means to maintain herself. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection denying the allegations in the application. He contended that the respondent deserted him and the child on 10.8.2012 without any sufficient cause. The respondent 4 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 has inherited 30 cents of property with 100 rubber trees and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 4. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Ext P1 was marked through her in evidence. The revision petitioner and two other witnesses were examined as CPWs 1 to 3 and Exts D1 to D3 were marked on his side. 5. 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 monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent @ Rs.5,000/-. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 5 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 7. Heard; Smt.Jinsamol M.A, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 8. Is there or any illegality, impropriety irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. It is also on record that there was a child born in the wedlock. 10. The respondent’s case in the application was that although the revision petitioner had sufficient means to maintain her, he has refused to pay any maintenance. 11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that the respondent was living separately from him without any sufficient cause and she has sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 12. Although the revision petitioner contended that the respondent was living separately from him without any sufficient cause, there is no materials on record to substantiate that the revision petitioner made any effort to resume cohabitation with the respondent. He has also not filed any petition seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, his defence that the respondent was living separately without any sufficient cause is untenable. 13. Similarly, though the revision petitioner contended that the respondent was earning Rs.20,000/per month from her property, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said assertion. 7 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 14. 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. 15. 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. 8 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 16. 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 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. 17. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there were other matrimonial proceedings between the parties pending before the same Family Court. It is also on 9 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 record that the respondent had conveyed fifteen cents of property in favour of the revision petitioner through a settlement deed. The revision petitioner was aged 38 years at the time of filing of the application. There is nothing on record to show that he suffered from any disability or ailment. Therefore, he is assumed to be an able bodied person. Thus, the direction of the Family Court that the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- is only reasonable and justifiable. 18. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record, 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 10 R.P (FC) No.368 of 2015 revision petition is devoid of any merits and is only liable to be dismissed. 19. 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. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Family Court for further proceedings. SD/- sks/29.11.2023 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**