Challenge to a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs.6,000 monthly to an unemployed wife and B Pharm student daughter of a CRPF officer. The High Court found the amount barely sufficient and dismissed the petition.
None granted; petition against interim maintenance order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V &
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY,THE11THDAYOFAPRIL2024/22NDCHAITHRA,
1946
OP (FC) NO. 241 OF 2022
AGAINSTTHEORDERDATED25.01.2022INI.ANo.2935/2017
INOPNO.1503OF2017OFFAMILYCOURT,KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS1&2:
1MDANILKUMAR
AGED45YEARS,S/O.DIVAKARAN,POORAM,
EDAMULAKKALP.O.,EDAMULAKKALVILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAMTALUK-691306,
PRESENTLYWORKINGASSUBINSPECTOR,
C.I.S.F.TRAININGCENTRE,
KARAKKUDI,TAMILNADU-630301
2 THANKAMONY
AGED68YEARS,W/O.DIVAKARAN,
POORAM,EDAMULAKKALP.O.,EDAMULAKKALVILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAMTALUK-691306.
BYADVS.
JESSYS.SALIM
A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2:
1SUREKHA
AGED37YEARS,D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
RAGAMALIKA,KAPPILMUKKU(EAST),
NEARALUMMODDUJUN.,KRISHNAPURAMP.O.,
KRISHNAPURAMVILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLYTALUK,PIN-690533
2VANDANAAS
AGED17YEARS,D/OSUREKHARAGAMALIKA,
KAPPILMUKKU(EAST),NEARALUMMODDUJUN.,
2
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
KRISHNAPURAMP.O.,KRISHNAPURAMVILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLYTALUK-690533
REPRESENTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT,GUARDIAN.
BYADVS.
K.V.ANILKUMARFORPARTYRESP.
SWAPNAVIJAYAN(K/001165/2006)
RADHIKAS.ANIL(K/000183/2019)
THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON11.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
3
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The petitioners herein are the respondents in O.P No.1503 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. The aforesaid petition has been filed under Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act by the respondents who are the wife and minor daughter of the 1st petitioner.
4
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
was his wife who had left his company and has been leading a luxurious life ever since. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the 1st respondent had stayed in the house of the petitioner herein, consequent to the efforts to settle the disputes by recourse to mediation. However, she left the house without informing the petitioner herein. It is also submitted that the petitioner has to support his aged parents and he does not have the wherewithal to pay any amounts by way of maintenance.
the records.
1 Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353
5
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
‘2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such an able-bodied person to show the Court, through cogent grounds that he is unable, for
6
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.
This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE
IAP
7
OP(FC) 241 of 2022
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 241/2022
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
ExhibitP1COPYOFTHEORDERDATED25/01/2022INIA
NO.2935/2017INOPNO.1503/2017OFFAMILY
COURT,KOTTARAKKARA.
ExhibitP2COPYOFTHEORIGINALPETITIONNO.1503/2017
FORMAINTENANCE
ExhibitP3COPYOFTHEOBJECTIONFILEDBYTHE
PETITIONERS.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.6,000 per mensem awarded to the wife and daughter by the Family Court warranted interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. MeenaRelied on
(2015) 6 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
M.D. Anilkumar
Thankamony
Surekha
Vandana A S
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
P.M. Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court