High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-07Partly allowed; maintenance for 2nd petitioner ...

Suma and Anirudh (minor) through mother Suma v. Somakumaran

Case / Petition Number:RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.DIAS JUDGE
Judgment Date: 2023-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,500 per month as maintenance to the 2nd petitioner from 19.03.2013 till the 2nd petitioner attains majority. Arrears, if any, are payable in four equal monthly installments commencing 07.02.2024. If the arrears are deposited, they shall be released to the 2nd petitioner per law. The 1st petitioner’s maintenance claim was dismissed.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; maintenance for 2nd petitioner increased to Rs. 2,500 per month from 19.03.2013 until majority; arrears ordered in installments; divorce acknowledged in the record.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suma
Anirudh (minor) through mother Suma

Respondents

Somakumaran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Jayaram

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Arun Kumar
• Smt. Ambika Radhakrishnan
• Sri Thiyyannoor Ramakrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court revision under Section 125 CrPC filed by Suma (the wife) and her minor son Anirudh challenging an order of the Family Court, Thrissur, in MC 127/2013. The petition arose after the 1st petitioner alleged matrimonial cruelty and abandonment, leading to the husband’s obligation to maintain the wife and child. The Family Court had directed maintenance to the minor at Rs. 2,000 per month and dismissed the wife’s claim. After the couple’s divorce by mutual consent, the petitioners pressed only the question of the adequacy of maintenance for the minor. The respondent contended that his income was modest (Rs. 3,000 per month) while the petitioners claimed a much higher earning (Rs. 35,000 per month from dairy trade plus Rs. 5,000 from property), with documentary evidence Ext. X1 supporting the milk-income figure. The High Court, considering the evidence and the divorce, held the respondent’s notional income at Rs. 25,000 per month. It held that the 2nd petitioner was entitled to Rs. 2,500 per month as maintenance from 19.03.2013 until majority, partly allowing the revision. Arrears were ordered to be paid in four installments beginning 07.02.2024. The decision underscores maintenance as social justice and cites Supreme Court precedents on the rationales for Section 125 CrPC.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureConstitution of India Article 15(3)Constitution of India Article 39

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Maintenance is a measure of social justice to protect women and children and to prevent destitution (social justice doctrine).
Sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to wife and minor children, must earn and contribute even if by physical labour (duty doctrine).
Maintenance laws are enacted to provide recourse to dependants under the constitutional framework (social justice doctrine).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the respondent’s income was far higher than conceded, asserting a monthly income of about Rs. 35,000 from dairy trade and Rs. 5,000 from landed property (supported by Ext. X1 showing Rs. 5,000 monthly from milk). They sought enhanced maintenance for the 2nd petitioner, arguing the wife’s and child’s precarious financial situation and the respondent’s ability to pay. After the MT, the 2nd petitioner’s maintenance remained under scrutiny given the divorce, with emphasis on the minor’s welfare.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent claimed a modest income of Rs. 3,000 per month and argued that the 1st petitioner was employed with earnings of about Rs. 200 per day, while the 1st petitioner and child lived separately with no sufficient cause. He contended there was no basis for higher maintenance, pointing to the separation and divorce as factors in the determination.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Cited to reaffirm that maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC are rooted in social justice and to provide for dependants, guiding quantum and purpose.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.	(1978) 4 SCC 70	Positive	Cited to establish that maintenance is a social justice measure protecting women and children under constitutional directives.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.	(2015) 6 SCC 353	Positive	Cited to emphasize that Section 125 aims to ameliorate the suffering of a wife and minor children and that the husband must provide 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 Suma and Anirudh (minor) through mother Suma v. Somakumaran 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 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** ## **RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 127/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** 1 SUMA, D/O.SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR DESOM P.O./VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 ANIRUDH SO.SUMA AGED 4 YEARS, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR DESOM/P.O./VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT, MINOR 2ND PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER AS GUARDIAN. BY ADV SRI.P.JAYARAM ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SOMAKUMARAN AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. V.M.ACHUTHAN NAIR, VELATHODI,MANGAT HOUSE, MAYANNUR DESOM, P.O. MAYANNUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 679 105. BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 2 ## **ORDER** Aggrieved by the rejection of the 1[st] revision petitioner's application for maintenance and dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 2[nd] revision petitioner, the petitioners in M.C.No.127/2013 of the Family Court, Thrissur, have filed the revision petition against the respondent – the former husband of the 1[st] revision petitioner and father of the 2[nd] revision petitioner. ## **Brief facts** 2. The revision petitioners had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, averring that the 1[st] revision petitioner was married to the respondent on 18.04.2010. The 2[nd] revision petitioner was born in their marriage on 02.04.2011. The respondent treated the 1[st] revision petitioner with matrimonial cruelty and the 1[st] revision petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Despite the respondent earning a monthly income of Rs.40,000/- from RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 3 his business in sale of milk and his landed property, he has refused to maintain the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, the application. 3. The respondent resisted the application by filing a written objection contending that the 1[st] revision petitioner is earning more than Rs.200/- per day from her employment. The respondent is only earning Rs.3,000/per month. The 1[st] revision petitioner is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 4. The 1[st] revision petitioner got herself and a witness as PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 series in evidence. The respondent got himself examined as RW1. The revision petitioners had summoned and marked Ext.X1 document to prove the income of the respondent. 5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials placed on record, by the impugned order, partly RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 4 allowed the application by directing the respondent to pay the 2[nd] revision petitioner monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,000/- from the date of petition. The 1[st] revision petitioner's claim was dismissed. 6. Dissatisfied with the impugned order; the petitioners have filed the revision petition. 7. Heard; Sri.P.Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners very fairly submitted that subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, the marriage between the 1[st] revision petitioner and the respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce on mutual consent, and the disputes between the couples were settled. Therefore, the 1[st] revision petitioner is not pressing the revision petition against the dismissal of her application for maintenance. RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 5 Hence, the revision petition may be confined to the question regarding the inadequacy of maintenance awarded to the 2[nd] revision petitioner. 9. The respondent admits his marriage with the 1[st] revision petitioner and the paternity of the 2[nd] revision petitioner. Now it is not disputed that the marriage between the 1[st] revision petitioner and the respondent has been severed by a decree of divorce. 10. The sole question to be decided in the revision petition is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 2[nd] revision petitioner is reasonable and justifiable. 11. The revision petitioners' case is that the respondent is doing trade in milk and is earning Rs.35,000/- per month. He is also earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his landed property. The respondents' defence was that he was only earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. The revision petitioners had summoned and RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 6 proved Ext.X1 document issued by the Co-operative Society which substantiates that the respondent is earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- from the sale of milk. 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 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 RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 7 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. 16. The respondent was aged 32 years at the time of filing the application. He has no physical or mental ailments. Thus, he is deemed to be an able bodied person. An able bodied person, in the year 2013, by any stretch of imagination, would have earned ateast Rs.1,000/- per day for 25 days in a month. Hence, the respondent's notional monthly income is fixed @ Rs.25,000/-. 17. Keeping in mind the above income, I am of the definite view that the 2[nd] revision petitioner was entitled to Rs.2,500/- per month as monthly maintenance, which RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 8 is reasonable and justifiable. 18. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, I am of the view that the revision petition is to be partly allowed by ordering the respondent to pay the 2[nd] revision petitioner monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- from 19.03.2013 till the date the 2[nd] revision petitioner attains majority. In result: - (i) The revision petition is allowed in part. - (ii) The impugned order is modified by directing the respondent to pay the 2[nd] revision petitioner monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- from 19.03.2013 till the 2[nd] revision petitioner attains majority or otherwise modified. - (iii) Taking into account the fact this Court has passed the order nearly after a decade, I am of the view that the respondent should be granted a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance due as per this order. Consequently, I permit the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance due to the 2[nd] RPFC NO. 391 OF 2015 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** revision petitioner as per this order and the impugned order in four equated and successive monthly installments commencing from 07.02.2024. - (iv) If the said amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the 2[nd] revision petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/07.12.23