High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-15Dismissed

RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017 (Revision Petition)

Case / Petition Number:RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS
Judgment Date: 2023-12-15
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order directing maintenance at Rs. 4,500 per month is upheld. The petitioner is permitted to pay arrears in three equated monthly installments on 15.02.2024, 15.03.2024 and 15.04.2024, with any deposits already made under interim orders to be adjusted against the balance due.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Baburaj, aged 46 years, s/o Chandrasekharan, Kongattupadam, Chedankalay, Kanjikode West Post, Palakkad Taluk

Respondents

Kumari, D/o. Chinna Kappil House, Kayaramokode, Mundoor Post, Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Nikhil Sankar
• Adv.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. A. R. Gangadas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC filed by BaburaJ challenging the Family Court, Palakkad, order in M.C. No. 236/2014 directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,500 to Kumari, his wife whom he married in 2011 and with whom there are no children. Kumari alleged matrimonial cruelty, including threats to strangulate and kill, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and seek shelter at her parental home. She claimed she is employed in VM Politex Limited, earning about Rs. 13,500 per month. BaburaJ, a coolie worker with parental responsibilities for three children from a previous marriage, contended that he has to maintain his dependants and that Kumari left without sufficient cause, claiming he has insufficient means to pay the maintenance. The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence (PW1 and CPWs 1-2), partly allowed the application, directing maintenance of Rs. 4,500 per month. The revision petition argues illegality in that order, asserting the respondent’s alleged earnings and his own limited means. The High Court, relying on Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr., Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, and Bhuwan Mohan Singh, treats maintenance as a social-justice measure and permits court-led estimation of notional income. It fixes the petitioner’s notional income at Rs. 25,000 per month, finds no illegality, and dismisses the revision petition while allowing arrears to be paid in three installments, with adjustment for any interim deposits.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance as a social justice measure to provide recourse to dependants (wives/children) to prevent destitution
Sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to wife and children
Courts may estimate notional income via reasonable guesswork to determine quantum of maintenance

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the respondent left the matrimonial home allegedly due to cruelty and that she is in a position to support herself, while he is a coolie worker with three children from a prior marriage. He asserts that his income is limited and that the maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court (Rs. 4,500 per month) may be beyond his actual means. He submits that the court should adopt a conservative approach to notional income and verify the respondent’s earnings; he seeks a reconsideration of quantum and a reasonable payment schedule. The revision petition argues lack of adequate grounds to order maintenance and emphasizes his financial constraints.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month, asserting continued dependence and that the husband has the means to maintain her. She describes matrimonial cruelty and states she left the home and sought employment, earning about Rs. 13,500 per month. She contends the husband is obliged under Sec.125 CrPC and relevant social-justice principles to provide for her and their children, and that the amount should reflect her needs and the husband's earning capacity.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Cited as authority for the social-justice rationale of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the obligation to provide support to dependants.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.	(1978) 4 SCC 70	Positive	Cited to underscore maintenance as a social-justice measure protecting women and children under constitutional principles.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.	(2015) 6 SCC 353	Positive	Cited to support the though that Section 125 aims to ameliorate suffering and that the husband must provide support; court may determine notional income when needed.

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 RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017 (Revision Petition) 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** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2016 IN MC 236/2014 OF FAMILY COURT,** ## **PALAKKAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** **BABURAJ AGED 46 YEARS S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KONGATTUPADAM, CHEDANKALAYI, KANJIKODE WEST POST, PALAKKAD THALUK** **BY ADV SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** ## **KUMARI** **D/O. CHINNA KAPPIL HOUSE, KAYARAMOKODE, MUNDOOR POST, PALAKKAD THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **BY ADV SRI.A.R.GANGADAS** **THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **2** ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.236/2014 of the Family Court, Palakkad, ordering the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,500/- to the respondent. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court. 2. The respondent had filed the application under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”), against the revision petitioner seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/-. The respondent's case was that, she was married to the revision petitioner on 20.10.2011. The couple is issueless. The revision petitioner treated the respondent with matrimonial cruelty. He attempted to strangulate and kill her. Therefore, she was compelled to leave matrimonial home and seek shelter in her natal home. The revision petitioner **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **3** is an Electrician-cum-Plumber by profession and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 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 allegation in the application. He contended that the respondent was living separately from him without sufficient cause. The respondent was working in 'VM Politex Limited', Kanjikode and was earning Rs.13,500/- per month. The revision petitioner was only a coolie worker and he has to maintain his three children in his first marriage. He does not have the means to maintain the respondent. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The respondent was examined as PW1 and revision petitioner and a witnesses were examined as CPWs 1 and 2. 5. The Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and materials placed on record, by impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **4** revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance as already observed above. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.S.Nikhil Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.A.R.Gangadas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. 10. The sole question that arises for determination is the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 11. The respondent's case was that, the revision petitioner treated her with matrimonial cruelty and drew away her from the matrimonial home. Despite the revision petitioner having sufficient means, he has refused to **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **5** maintain the respondent. 12. The revision petitioner's defence was that, the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. She is working in a Private Company and has sufficient means to maintain herself. The revision petitioner was only a coolie worker and he has three children in his first marriage to be looked after. Therefore, he does not have the means to maintain the respondent. 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 Supreme Court has declared that the provision of maintenance is a measure of social justice and specially **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **6** 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, and the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied and cannot avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 16. It is well settled 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. **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **7** 17. Even though, the revision petitioner has contended that the respondent was living separately without sufficient cause, there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate that the revision petitioner had taken any earnest effort to resume cohabitation with respondent. He also did not file a petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Similarly, though the revision petitioner had alleged that the respondent is working in a Private Company, there is again no material to prove the aspect. Therefore, the revision petitioner's defence is untenable and is only to be rejected. 18. The revision petitioner was aged 46 years at the time of filing the application. There is nothing on record to prove that he is suffering from any ailment or disability. Hence, he is assumed to be an able bodied person. An able bodied person, in the year 2014, by any stretch of imagination would have earned Rs.1,000/- per day for a period of 25 days in a month. Hence, the revision petitioner's notional income can easily be fixed at **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **8** Rs.25,000/- per month. 19. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings and materials on record, I am of the view that the impugned order directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent a monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,500/- is reasonable and justifiable. 20. 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 devoid of any merits and is only liable to be dismissed. 21. Finally, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that, since the revision petition has been pending before this Court from 2017 onwards and the operation of the impugned order was conditionally stayed, the revision petitioner may be granted a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance due as per the impugned order. I find the above submission to be reasonable and justifiable, in view of the interim order passed by this **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **9** ## Court In the result, 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. Nonetheless, the revision petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears of maintenance due to the respondent in three equated monthly installments falling on 15.02.2024, 15.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 respectively. If the revision petitioner fails to pay the arrears, as ordered above, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the impugned order in accordance with law. **Sd/- C.S.DIAS(J) JUDGE** lsn **RPFC NO. 259 OF 2017** **10** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE M.C.NO.236/2014 DATED 24.09.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.** **ANNEXURE B: CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2016 IN M.C.NO.236/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN**