The court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the statutory duty to support wives post-separation.

O R D E R

This revision is filed against the order dated

29.05.2017 in MC No. 210/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. As per the impugned order, the Family court granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is working in KSRTC and the same is not considered by the Family Court, while deciding the matter.

The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that this point is considered by the Family Court and thereafter, the maintenance is granted.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. The contentions raised by the petitioner is already considered by the Family Court in detail in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. It will be better to extract paragraph 8 of the judgment.

8 “According to the petitioner, she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the petitioner is working as a junior assistant in KSRTC and is getting 21,000/- per month. The petitioner admitted that she was working as a junior assistant in KSRTC as daily wages. She contented that now she has no job. Except the oral evidence of RWI, here absolutely there is no documents to prove that the petitioner is working even now and is getting income. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a conductor in KSRTC and is getting 30.000/- per month. RWI admitted that he was working as a conductor in KSRTC. But RWI deposed that now he is working as a Last Grade Assistant in Sreekrishnapuram Government Engineering College. He admitted that he is getting a gross salary of 18,985/- and is getting 15,000/- per month as net salary Though he has not produced his present salary certificate, he admitted that his present salary is 18,985/-. So he is able to maintain the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is 10,000/- per month which is an exorbitant amount. So according to me, the petitioner is entitled to get 5,000/- per month from the respondent. So the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.”

5. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding of the fact. But, if there is any change of circumstances subsequent to the impugned order, the petitioner can approach the Family Court with appropriate application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C./Sec.146 BNSS. As far as the impugned order is concerned, there is nothing to interfere with the same.

6. 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