Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe revision petition is meritless and is dismi...

Shinu Kumar S Pillai v. Bindu Sukumara Pillai

Case / Petition Number:RPFC NO. 439 OF 2017
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-11-28
Court Decision / Holding
Revision petition dismissed. However, the court left open the possibility of a separate challenge to the validity of the marriage, if pursued.
Final Disposition
The revision petition is meritless and is dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shinu Kumar S Pillai

Respondents

  • Bindu Sukumara Pillai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Swathi Kumar B.S.
  • • Anitha Ravindran
  • • Harisankar N Unni
  • • Vineetha Bose
  • • Sanjo Prakash C.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. Binny Joseph
  • • Basil Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging a Family Court of Muvattupuzha order directing maintenance to the respondent. The respondent, Bindu Sukumara Pillai, had approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC alleging she was married to the petitioner, Shinu Kumar S Pillai, on 24.06.2010 and that she resided with him until his alleged desertion on 16.10.2012, after which she sought maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month. The Family Court in MC 38/2014 partly allowed the petition, ordering the revision petitioner to pay Rs 5,000 per month from the date of application. The revision petitioner’s counsel contends there is no valid marriage; he also asserts a dispute over funds involving Rs 8 lakh allegedly borrowed by the respondent and a co-accused, which forms a facet of the personal relationship but not a binding justification to deny maintenance if a wife is found to be legally married. The respondent supported maintenance, arguing the social justice aim of maintenance laws and the obligation of a husband to support his wife and children, with the respondent’s testimony as PW1. The High Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that Section 125 cannot adjudicate marriage validity, noted the petitioner offered no evidence to rebut PW1, and dismissed the revision petition, while leaving open the question of marriage validity if pursued separately.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984Article 15(3) of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 39 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Maintenance is a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children (Rajnesh v. Neha)
  • Validity of marriage cannot be adjudicated in Section 125 proceedings (Pyla Mutyalamma)
  • Courts may estimate notional income for fixing maintenance (notional income assessment)
  • Duty of husband to provide maintenance to wife/children (Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal)
  • Maintenance goals to ameliorate financial suffering as per Bhuwan Mohan Singh

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that there is no valid marriage between him and the respondent, a fact not tested by evidence since the respondent testified as PW1 and the petitioner offered no contrary evidence. He asserts the Rs. 8,00,000 loan dispute with Krishna Kumar and an alleged fraud indicate a motive to file the maintenance petition rather than a genuine marriage issue. His income is around Rs. 15,000 per month and he must maintain his parents, leaving little for his wife, so the maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC is misconceived. He argues that Section 125 proceedings are not a forum to adjudicate marriage validity, citing Pyla Mutyalamma and Sivadasan P.K.; the Family Court’s reliance on the respondent’s evidence is improper and the order of Rs. 5,000 should be set aside. He prays for dismissal of the petition, while leaving open any separate declaration of marriage validity if sought.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent asserts a valid marriage on 24.06.2010 and that she resided with the petitioner as husband and wife until his desertion on 16.10.2012. She seeks maintenance under Section 125 as a protected dependent, arguing that maintenance is a social justice measure to prevent destitution. She relies on the jurisprudence cited by the court—particularly Rajnesh v. Neha, Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal, and Bhuwan Mohan Singh—to support a husband’s obligation to provide for his wife and minor children. The respondent emphasizes that Section 125 courts do not adjudicate marriage validity, but the fact of marriage and desertion are sufficient to ground maintenance. She notes the evidence of PW1 and asserts the Family Court’s calculated maintenance amount is appropriate and justified under current law.”},

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathy v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.2011 KHC 4708PositiveEstablishes that validity of the marriage cannot be adjudicated in Section 125 proceedings, a principle relied upon by the court.
Sivadasan P.K. v. Jainy and another2021 (2) KHC 242PositiveReiterates the principle that marriage validity is not adjudicated in Section 125 proceedings.
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.2020 (6) KHC 1PositiveAffirms maintenance as a social justice measure to protect dependants.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.(1978) 4 SCC 70PositiveMaintains that maintenance is a social justice provision to protect women and children.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.(2015) 6 SCC 353PositiveNotion of maintenance to ameliorate hardship and uphold the husband’s duty.

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 Shinu Kumar S Pillai v. Bindu Sukumara Pillai 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 439 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2016 IN MC 38/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` SHINU KUMAR S PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, KARIKKATHIL HOUSE, ERAM SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM - 691 572, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SASIDHARAN PILLAI, KARIKKATHIL HOUSE, ERAM SOUTH P.O.,KOLLAM - 691 572. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SWATHI KUMAR B.S. ANITHA RAVINDRAN(K/296/1990) HARISANKAR N UNNI(K/256/2016) VINEETHA BOSE(K/001438/2023) SANJO PRAKASH C.(K/3179/2023) ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` BINDU SUKUMARA PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, W/O.SHINU KUMAR S. PILLAI, SASTHAMKUNNU, PERUMBALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.BINNY JOSEPH BASIL MATHEW(K/74/2010) ``` ``` THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:2:- Dated this the 28[th] day of November,2023 ## **O R D E R** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.38/2014 of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- from the date of application. 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 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), inter-alia, asserting that she was married to the revision petitioner on 24.06.2010 at Chottanikkara Devi Temple and they resided together as husband and R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:3:- wife at the residence of the revision petitioner at Chathannoor Village. The revision petitioner is employed in Muscat and is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The revision petitioner deserted the respondent since 16.10.2012 and has refused to maintain her. The respondent requires Rs.10,000/- for her monthly maintenance. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner through his power of attorney holder filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He contended that there was no valid marriage between him and the respondent. In fact, the respondent and one ‘Krishna Kumar’ had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the revision petitioner and they refused to return the said amount to him. Instead of returning the amount, the respondent has fraudulently filed the present application. The respondent is running a security service along with Krishna Kumar and is earning a R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:4:- monthly income of not less than Rs.10,000/-. The revision petitioner is only earning Rs.15,000/-. He has to maintain his parents. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. In the trial, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A3 in evidence. The revision petitioner did not let in any evidence. 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 the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5000/-. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Binny Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:5:- 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The cardinal contention of the revision petitioner is that, there is no valid marriage between him and the respondent. 10. In **Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathy v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.** [2011 KHC 4708], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the validity of the marriage cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code. The above position has been reiterated by this Court in **Sivadasan P.K. v. Jainy and another** [2021 (2) KHC 242]. 11. It is to be remembered that, even though the revision petitioner had raised a contention that there was no valid marriage between him and the respondent, he had not mounted the box and let in any evidence to substantiate his contention. It is on the R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:6:- basis of the uncontroverted assertions made by the respondent, who was examined as PW1, that the Family Court has decided the matter and passed the impugned order. 12. 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. 13. 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. R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:7:- 14. 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, husband was 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. 15. 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/father and fixing the quantum of maintenance. 16. On an overall consideration of the pleadings R.P.(FC)No.439/2017 -:8:- and materials on record, especially the fact that the revision petitioner has not let in any evidence to controvert the assertions of PW1, 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. 17. The revision petition is meritless and is only liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of the revision petition will not stand in the way of the revision petitioner seeking for declaration of the validity of his marriage with the respondent. Leaving open the said right, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/28.11.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge