A husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children persists irrespective of his employment status, and cannot be evaded based on personal grievances.

ORDER :

P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.03.2022 in MC No.129/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents, who are the wife and children of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent is living separately without any sufficient reason. The counsel takes me through paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment. The counsel also submitted that because of the activities on the part of the 1^st respondent, the petitioner lost his job. Now he has no job. Therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance to the respondents.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the impugned order. It is true that in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order it is stated that there are some violent incidents narrated by both PW1 and DW1. From the above, it cannot be said that the Family Court found that the wife is living separately. Moreover, in Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha [2014 KHC 4690] , the Apex Court observed that the maintenance cannot be denied for the reason that the wife has left the matrimonial house without any sufficient reason.

5. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has no job and he lost his job because of the activities of the 1^st respondent. The marriage and paternity of the children were not disputed. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay maintenance to the wife and children. If there is any other cause of action which leads to any loss to the petitioner, the petitioner has to do the needful in accordance with law. But, as far as the maintenance to the wife and children is concerned, there is ample evidence and the Family Court found that the petitioner is able to pay maintenance and the respondents are unable to maintain themselves. Moreover, if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Family Court with an application under Section 127 Cr.PC / 146 BNSS to vary the order. But, as far as the impugned order is concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the same.

6. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their husbands. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455], the Apex Court held as follows:

“3. Be it ingeminated that S.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 l