Shamnad v. Shahanas and Shifin

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-01
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is devoid of any illegality or irregularity; it is dismissed. The court agrees with the Family Court’s quantum of Rs. 4,000 per month (Rs. 3,000 to the wife and Rs. 1,000 to the daughter) as reasonable and justifiable, and directs that if any amount has been deposited interim, it may be adjusted while calculating arrears.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHAMNAD

Respondents

SHAHANAS
SHIFIN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Ranjith (Manjeri)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC filed by Shamnad (RPFC 433/2016) challenging the Family Court, Ottapalam’s order in MC 88/2013 directing maintenance to his former wife Shahanas and her minor daughter Shifin. The Family Court held that the revision petitioner should pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000 per month to the daughter from 04.09.2013, totaling Rs. 4,000 per month. The petitioner contends he earns only Rs. 200 per day as a barber; he asserts the wife has means and contends she deserted him without sufficient cause, and that he has remarried. The respondents allege the petitioner actually earns about Rs. 50,000 per month and deserted them, leaving them without means. The revision petition was opposed by the respondents, who rely on the statutory objective of Section 125 CrPC to provide maintenance to wife and child. The High Court, noting the petitioner’s admission of marriage and paternity, and citing the principle that an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and child (Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg), upholds the Family Court’s quantum of Rs. 4,000 per month, finding no illegality in its order. The petition is dismissed, with guidance that any interim deposits may be adjusted while calculating arrears.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Chapter IX, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Family Courts Act, 1964Section 19(4), Family Courts Act, 1964

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, so that suitable arrangements can be made by the Courts to sustain them in their life ahead.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that he is employed as a barber in a salon run by his father and earns only about Rs. 200 per day, contrary to the claim that he earns Rs. 50,000 per month. He asserts that the first respondent (his wife) has means to maintain herself and that she deserted him without sufficient cause. He admits the marriage and paternity of the second respondent and contends that the impugned maintenance order is excessive and unjustified in light of his actual income. He further submits that remarriage underscores his lack of obligation to pay an enhanced maintenance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the revision petitioner earns Rs. 50,000 per month and deserted them by leaving them in the first respondent’s parental home. They argue that they have no means to support themselves and that the maintenance orders are just and necessary under Section 125 CrPC to ensure the wife and child live in their rightful status. They highlight the petitioner’s remarriage as an additional factor but rely primarily on the petitioner’s capacity to pay.

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 person is bound to maintain his wife and child.

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 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 433 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 IN MC 88/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` SHAMNAD, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ASHARAF, KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERPULASSERY, SALIYAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:` ``` 1SHAHANAS, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. SHAMSUDHEER, PARAKKATT KUNNATH HOUSE, PANAMANNA, AMBALAVATTAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 501. 2SHIFIN, AGED 4 YEARS(MINOR), D/O. SHAHANAS, PARAKKATT KUNNATH HOUSE, PANAMANNA, AMBALAVATTAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 501. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SHAHANAS. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) ``` ``` THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:2:- Dated this the 1[st] day of November,2023 ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in M.C.No.88/2013 of the Family Court, Ottapalam, directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- & Rs.1,000/-, respectively, to his former wife and daughter – the respondents – from the date of application(04.09.2013). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts:** 2. The respondents had filed the above application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), against the revision petitioner, on the assertion that the first respondent got married to the revision petitioner on 21.02.2010 and in their wedlock, the second R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:3:- respondent was born. The revision petitioner is working in a Salon and is earning a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-. The respondents have no job or income. The revision petitioner has deserted the respondents by leaving them in the first respondent's parental home. The respondents are entitled to monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.6,000/- & Rs.5,000/-, respectively, from the revision petitioner. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written objection, refuting the allegations in the application. He denied the allegation that he had harassed the respondents and drew them away from the matrimonial home. Nonetheless, he admitted the marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent. It was his defence that the first respondent deserted him without sufficient cause. He admitted that he is a barber by profession, but is earning only R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:4:- Rs.200/- per day. The first respondent has bank account and has sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the first respondent was examined as PW 1 and the revision petitioner was examined as RW 1. 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 monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents @ Rs.3,000/- & Rs.1,000/-, respectively, from the date of application. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.P.M. Ziraj, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. R. Ranjith (Manjeri), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:5:- 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent. 10. The respondents contended that the revision petitioner is running his own Hair Cutting Salon and is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. They also alleged that the revision petitioner deserted them by leaving them in the first respondent's parental home. The respondents have no means to maintain themselves. 11. The revision petitioner's defence was that the respondents are living separately without any sufficient cause. He is working in a Salon owned by his father and is earning only Rs.200/- per day. As the first respondent is earning, he is not liable to maintain the respondents. 12. The revision petitioner has admitted that he R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:6:- got re-married. Therefore, his defence that the first respondent is living separately without sufficient cause cannot be accepted for a moment. 13. Thus, the only point to be decided is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is reasonable and justifiable. 14. It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is a barber by profession. He claims that he is only earning Rs.200/- per day. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The revision petitioner has not produced any material to prove his income. It goes without saying that the revision petitioner is an able bodied person, who is bound to maintain his divorced wife and child, who are entitled to live in the same status and position as that of the revision petitioner. R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:7:- 15. Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial sufferings of women and children, who are constrained to leave the matrimonial home for the reasons provided in Chapter IX of the Code, so that suitable arrangements can be made by the Courts to sustain them in their life ahead. 16. 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]]. 17. Going by the fact the revision petitioner is a barber, who is running his own Salon, I am of the definite view that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court @ Rs.4,000/- per month is reasonable and justifiable. 18. After bestowing my anxious consideration in the matter,I do not find any illegality, impropriety or R.P.(FC)No.433/2016 -:8:- irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,1964. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is hence, dismissed. Needless to mention, if the revision petitioner has deposited any amount, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, he would be entitled for adjustment of the deposited amount while calculating the arrears of maintenance payable to the respondents as per the impugned order. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/01.11.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge