IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
Paul George Son of Mekkattukulam George - Appellant
Versus
Emarin Paul Alias Unnimol Daughter of Chemmannoor Rajan - Respondent
RPFC NO. 207 OF 2020
Decided On : 12-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125(1)(a) and Section 125(4) - Maintenance - Husband challenged order directing him to pay maintenance to wife who left matrimonial home without sufficient reason - The Family Court found that the wife left without justification and there was no evidence of ill-treatment - The court emphasized that a wife living separately without valid grounds is not entitled to maintenance. (Paras 6 , 8 )
(B) Marital obligations - The court reiterated that the primary duty in marriage is to live together and fulfill responsibilities, and that withdrawal from this obligation disentitles one from claiming maintenance. (Paras 7 , 8 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a husband, contested a Family Court order requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife, who had left him on 16.11.2015, claiming ill-treatment. The court found no evidence supporting her claims.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court concluded that the wife had no justifiable reason for leaving and thus was not entitled to maintenance.
Issues: The main issues were whether the wife had valid grounds for leaving the marital home and whether she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a wife who leaves without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance, reaffirming that valid grounds must exist for such a claim.
Result: The impugned order is set aside; the maintenance case is dismissed.
ORDER :
A husband who suffered an order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C to provide maintenance to his wife despite her living apart for no justifiable reason is before me in this Revision Petition
2. The petitioner was the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed the maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court, Thrissur as M.C.No.354 of 2017 claiming maintenance. The Family Court tried M.C.No.354 of 2017 along with two petitions for guardianship filed by both sides as G.O.(P) Nos.1621 of 2016 & 1334 of 2017 and passed a common order. M.C.No.354 of 2017 was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. I have heard Smt.K.Meera, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ajmal V.A., the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent were legally wedded husband and wife. The marriage was solemnized on 07.01.2008. A girl child was born in the wedlock on 03.04.2013. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties in the year 2015, which led to the initiation of several litigations between them. Both parties filed petitions for custody of the child. The petitioner also filed an original petition for divorce against the respondent as O.P.No.1618 of 2016 before the Family Court and the divorce was granted as per the order dated 21.04.2017.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent left the company of the petitioner without any sufficient reason on 16.11.2015 and hence, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent left the company of the petitioner and has been living separately on account of the ill-treatment by the petitioner, and hence, she can still claim maintenance.
6. As stated already, M.C.No.354 of 2017 has been tried along with G.O.(P) Nos.1621 of 2016 & 1334 of 2017. As per the common order, the guardianship of the child was given to the petitioner. A reading of the common order would show that the petitioner specifically contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason on 16.11.2015, abandoning their 2½-year-old child there and never returned thereafter. The respondent has admitted that she left the matrimonial home on that day. But her contention is that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner. The parties let in evidence regarding these rival contentions. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the respondent left the matrimonial home leaving the child there without any reason. In paragraph 27 of the common order, there is a finding that even though the respondent has raised a contention that she left the petitioner due to ill-treatment, there is no evidence of any ill-treatment and there was not even a complaint by the respondent against the petitioner before any police. In paragraph 31 of the common order, there is a specific finding that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the definite intention to teach a lesson to the petitioner, and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent. Thus, there is clear evidence on record to show that the respondent has been living separately since 16.11.2015 without any sufficient reason. That apart, O.P.No.1618 of 2016, filed by the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, was allowed on those grounds.
7. The primary object of marriage, while varying across cultures and beliefs, often encompasses forming a legal and social unit providing companionship and emotional support apart from procreation and raising of children. Marriage brings with it specifi
A wife who leaves her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.
A husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children persists irrespective of his employment status, and cannot be evaded based on personal grievances.
Maintenance – Obligation of husband is on a higher pedestal when question of maintenance of wife and children arises.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice to protect women and child....
The court affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless disqualified, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support her, especially when she has been subjected to harassment.
Husbands must provide maintenance to wives living separately if justified, ensuring they do not live in destitution; courts uphold dignity and necessity of support.
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.