The court upheld the principle that a husband must provide maintenance to his wife and children, emphasizing it is a marital obligation supported by social justice provisions.

O R D E R

This revision is filed against the order dated

30.05.2016 in MC No. 65/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That was an application filed by the respondent claiming maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C . As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

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

3. Admittedly, the marriage and paternity is not disputed. According to the petitioner, he is a carpenter and he is not getting sufficient income to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/-. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is a tuition teacher and she is getting income.

4. After considering the entire evidence and documents, the Family Court concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. I see no reason to interfere with the same.

5. Sec. 125 Cr.P.C . is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women, who are abandoned by their husbands. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [ 2014 KHC 4455 ] considered this point in detail. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder :

“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 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.”

6. Similarly, the Apex Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC

607] observed like this:

9. “This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art.15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance