Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
KUNHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
HASEENA – Respondent
RPFC NO. 559 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
SRI.K.LAL MOHAN
For the Respondents: Not specified
A husband's pronouncement of divorce does not nullify a wife's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:This judgment addresses an order for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court finds the marriage and paternity undisputed, and the petitioners are entitled to maintenance despite the husband's claim that the divorce nullified maintenance rights. The Family Court determined that the respondent's income allows him to support both the petitioners and his other familial obligations. The court refused to overturn the Family Court's ruling. The court noted procedural allowances for potential future changes in circumstances.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed regarding maintenance orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. court analysis of entitlement despite divorce. (Para 2) |
| 3. final decision to dispose of the case. (Para 3) |
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 22.08.2017 in MC No. 167/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Vadakara. As per the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each to the wife and child under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. This revision is pending before this Court from 2017 onwards. This Court perused the impugned order. The marriage and the paternity of the child is not disputed. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent as having pronounced the faskh as against the petitioner and residing separately, is not entitled maintenance. This point is considered by the Family Court in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above order.
“Point: The initial contention of the respondent is that the first petitioner having pronounced fusk on him, she is not entitled for maintenance legally. I can not endorse the said contention for the reason that if a Muslim woman obtains an order of divorce by approaching the court under the provision of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act , will not the said wife get the status of a divorced wife in a proceedings under Sec. 125 CrPC? My answer is yes. Admittedly petitioners are deserted for 9 years by the respondent. They are liable to he maintained by him. Evidence of PWI also discloses that the petitioners are residing separately due to incessant cruelty by the respondent. The sources of income of the first petitioner put during cross examination is denied by her. There is not much of evidence to prove the income of the respondent. He is found an able bodied person capable of earning 800 per day with 25 days of work in a month. His monthly income is computed at Rs. 20,000/-. With that amount he has to maintain himself and petitioners herein 2 in Nos and his 2nd wife and 2 children totalling to 6 units. Considering the age of the petitioners, their standard of life their requirements and cost of living on the present day each of the petitioners require an amount of Rs. 3000/- each per month for their maintenance which amount the respondent is found capable of paying. Point found accordingly.”
3. I see no reason to interfere with the above order. Moreover, the quantum of maintenance is awarded only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each. There is nothing to interfere with the same. But, I make it clear that if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioner can approach the Family Court with appropriate application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C.
