In a couple of revision petitions filed before the Kerala High Court to challenge an order dated 09-08-2017 by the Family Court, Thalassery, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the husband’s petition while partly allowing the wife’s plea and directed the husband to pay Rs. 8000/- per month as maintenance for the wife.

In the present matter, the wife and children filed a maintenance case against the husband, claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. The Family Court rejected the wife’s claim and granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 6000/- each to both children. The wife filed a revision petition to challenge the rejection of her claim and the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children, whereas the husband filed another revision petition challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children.

The husband submitted that the wife was a tailor and earned her livelihood, which is why the Family Court had rightly rejected her claim. It was also submitted that the monthly maintenance granted to the children was on the higher side since Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), provides that both parents are liable to maintain the children. The maintenance to the wife was denied since she was a tailor by profession, and she left her husband without a valid reason.

The Court noted that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)[1] is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women and children, which falls within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. It was said that various judgments have settled that the words ‘unable to maintain herself’ in Section 125 do not mean that the wife must be in a state of penury.

The Court stated that merely because the marriage certificate showed her occupation as a tailor and she had taken membership in the All-Kerala Tailors’ Association, it did not mean that she was actually doing tailoring work or able to maintain herself. It was also said that even if the wife used to visit her brother’s shop occasionally to do tailoring work, this was not a ground to deny her maintenance.

Further, the Court noted that the wife gave evidence that the husband exercised cruelty on her and never came to take her from her parental house after leaving her there on 19-09-2014. The Court perused the instances of cruelty deposed by the wife and held that said instances were sufficient to justify the wife living separately from her husband. Thus, the Court held that both grounds found by the Family Court to deny maintenance to the wife could not be sustained.

Considering the children’s requirements and the husband’s means, who was also a tailor, the Court found the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the children to be reasonable. While finding the husband liable to maintain the wife, the Court fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 8000/- per month.

Thus, the husband’s petition was dismissed, whereas the wife’s was partly allowed, and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 8000/- to the wife as maintenance, over and above the maintenance granted to the children by the Family Court.

Appearances:

RPFC No. 476 of 2017

For Petitioner(s) – R. Surendran

For Respondent(s) – K.K. Chandralekha, K.C. Santhoshkumar

RPFC No. 409 of 2017

For Petitioner(s) – K.C. Santhoshkumar, K.K. Chandralekha

For Respondent(s) – R. Surendran

[1] Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Read Full Judgment Click here