Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeRevision petitions dismissed; maintenance uphel...

Sony Philip v. Jain Mathew (RPFC Nos.382 & 509/2023)

Case / Petition Number:RPFC Nos.382 & 509/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-12-21
Court Decision / Holding
The revision petitions are meritless and are dismissed. The Family Court’s order directing maintenance at Rs.3,500 per month is upheld. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears in three equal and successive installments commencing 21.01.2024. If the petitioner fails to pay any installment, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the impugned order as per law.
Final Disposition
Revision petitions dismissed; maintenance upheld and arrears ordered to be paid in installments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sony Philip
  • Jain Mathew

Respondents

  • Jain Mathew
  • Sony Philip

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Kishor B.
  • • M. M. Laiju Nissa
  • • Thomas J Anakkallunkal
  • • Jayaraman S.
  • • Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth
  • • Melba Mary Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • UNKNOWN

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two revision petitions under Section 125 CrPC challenging the Family Court, Pala’s order dated 15.12.2022 awarding maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,500 per month from 06.07.2018. The petitions were heard together as RPFC Nos.382/2023 (husband Sony Philip as petitioner) and RPFC No.509/2023 (wife Jain Mathew as petitioner). The Family Court consolidated three proceedings (including related divorce and money/gold claims) and, after recording evidence, held the husband liable to pay maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,500 per month, considering the husband's alleged income and the wife’s alleged lack of independent means. The husband contended that his true income is only Rs.20,000 per month, denied being a construction contractor earning Rs.80,000, and argued that the wife should not be maintained since she was living separately; he asserted readiness to resume cohabitation and urged dismissal of the application. The wife claimed a right to maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month, arguing hardship and non-ability to maintain herself given lack of resources. The High Court, while noting the presumption of social justice behind maintenance laws and permitting judicial estimation of notional income, concluded that the husband is able-bodied and fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000, finding the Rs.3,500 quantum reasonable. The petitions were dismissed; arrears are to be paid in three equal installments starting 21.01.2024 with provision for execution if default occurs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Maintenance is a measure of social justice to protect dependants (as held in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.)
  • Courts may estimate notional income and apply some guesswork to determine quantum of maintenance (notional income doctrine)
  • Maintenance laws are enacted to prevent destitution and vagrancy among wives and children (as reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.; Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitions challenge the Family Court’s maintenance order on the ground that the applicant-husband’s actual income is considerably lower than claimed and that a Court can reasonably estimate income (notional income) for purposes of maintenance. The petitioner contends that the wife has failed to establish exclusive dependence and that he is ready to resume cohabitation. He argues that the Family Court erred in accepting an income of Rs.80,000 claimed but not proven and in not correctly assessing his true earnings, asserting that a figure around Rs.20,000 per month more accurately reflects his financial capacity. The petitions also urge that the quantum of Rs.3,500 per month is excessive given his alleged lawful income and the wife’s own means. The relief sought is to set aside/modify the maintenance amount and related arrears, preserving the respondent’s right to seek fair maintenance if supported by evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The wife argues that she is entitled to maintenance in order to avoid destitution, given the marriage’s end in cruelty and lack of independent means, with the husband earning substantially more than Rs.20,000 per month. She asserts she has no means to sustain herself and relies on the maintenance order to ensure parity in living standards and dignity, especially since she is issueless and has suffered matrimonial breakdown. The respondent-wife highlights the husband’s ability to earn and the need to secure long‑term financial support. She argues the court’s method of determining income and maintenance is consistent with social justice obligations and constitutional protections for women under Section 125 CrPC.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr2020 (6) KHC 1PositiveCited to emphasize that maintenance laws are a social justice remedy to prevent destitution and to support dependants.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.[(1978) 4 SCC 70]PositiveCited to reaffirm maintenance as a social justice measure protecting women and children.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.[(2015) 6 SCC 353]PositiveCited to underscore purpose of Section 125 and the husband’s duty to provide financial support.

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 Sony Philip v. Jain Mathew (RPFC Nos.382 & 509/2023) 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 ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 382 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 IN MC 49/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` SONY PHILIP , AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PHILLIP, PICHATTU HOUSE, MANNADISALA P. O, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATTANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 686511 ``` ``` BY ADVS.KISHOR B. M.M.LAIJU NISSA ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` JAIN MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O MATHEW, THAZHATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM. P. O, POOVARANY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, 686578. ``` ``` BY ADVS.THOMAS J ANAKKALLUNKAL . ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH(K/427/2007) JAYARAMAN S.(K/1244/2019) MELBA MARY SANTHOSH(K/001148/2023) ``` ``` THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, ALONG WITH RPFC.509/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:2:- ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 509 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 IN MC 49/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:` ``` JAIN MATHEW, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. MATHEW, THAZHATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM PO, EDAMATTOM KARA, POOVARANY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686578 ``` ``` BY ADVS.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL JAYARAMAN S. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:` ``` SONY PHILIP, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PHILIP, PICHANATTU HOUSE, MANNADISALA PO, KOLLAMULA VILAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 686511 ``` ``` THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, ALONG WITH RPFC.382/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:3:- Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 2023 ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** As these revision petitions are filed challenging the order in M.C.No.49/2018 of the Family Court, Pala, directing the husband to pay the wife monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/- from the date of application(06.07.2018), they are being disposed of by this common order. R.P.(FC)No.382/2023 is filed by the husband assailing the impugned order and R.P. (FC)No.509/2023 is filed by the wife, dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance ordered. For convenience, the parties are referred to as the ‘revision petitioner/husband’ and ‘respondent – wife’. 2. The respondent/wife had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), against the revision petitioner/husband, seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.20,000/-. It was R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:4:- her case that, she was married to the revision petitioner on 16.05.2013. They are issueless. The revision petitioner treated her with matrimonial cruelty. She has no means to maintain herself. The revision petitioner is a construction contractor and has five acres of agricultural land, and he is earning a monthly income of Rs.80,000/-. The respondent has a right to live in the same status and standard of living as that of the revision petitioner. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner had filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He denied the allegation that he was working as a construction contractor. He contended that he was doing some private work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was living in a rental premises by paying Rs.8,000/- per month as rent. The revision petitioner is ready to resume cohabitation with the respondent. R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:5:- Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The respondent had also filed O.P.Nos.326/2018 & 327/2018 against the revision petitioner, for a decree for divorce and a decree for return of money and gold ornaments, respectively. 5. The Family Court consolidated and jointly tried the three proceedings. The respondent examined herself and two other witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exts A1 to A9 in evidence. The revision petitioner got himself examined as RW1 and marked Exts B1 to B27 on his side. 6. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application, by ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,500/-. 7. It is assailing the said order, these revision petitions are filed. R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:6:- 8. Heard; Sri. Kishor B, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and Sri. Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife. 9. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 10. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. The respondent’s case in the application was that, the revision petitioner had treated her with matrimonial cruelty and refused to maintain her, despite having a monthly income of Rs.80,000/-. 11. The revision petitioner’s defence was that the respondent was living separately from him without sufficient cause and he was only earning Rs.20,000/per month from his private work. 12. Even though the revision petitioner contended that the respondent was living separately R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:7:- from him without any sufficient cause, admittedly, he had not taken any earnest effort to resume cohabitation with the respondent. He also did not file any petition seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Similarly, though the respondent contended that the revision petitioner was earning Rs.80,000/- per month, there is nothing on record to prove the said assertion. 13. The Family Court, taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner was only 39 years at the time of filing the application and was an able bodied person ordered him to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent. 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 R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:8:- 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. ## 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 R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:9:- 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. 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. 18. As already observed, the revision petitioner was aged 39 years at the time of filing of the application. There is nothing on record to prove that the revision petitioner was suffering from any bodily ailment or disability. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the revision petitioner is an able bodied person. An able bodied person in the year 2017, by any stretch of imagination, would have earned nothing less than Rs.800/- per day for at least 25 days in a month. Therefore, I fix the notional income of the revision R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:10:- petitioner @ Rs.20,000/- per month. Taking into account the notional income of the revision petitioner at Rs.20,000/- per month, I find the amount of Rs.3,500/- ordered by the Family Court to be reasonable and justifiable. I do not find any error or impropriety in the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court. 19. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petitions are meritless and are only liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petitions are dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the respondent as per the impugned order in three equated and successive monthly instalments commencing from 21.01.2024. If R.P.(FC)Nos.382 & 509/2023 -:11:- the revision petitioner fails to pay one of the instalments, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the impugned order in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/21.12.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge