The court reaffirmed the importance of maintaining a wife's dignity through established financial support post-separation, emphasizing the husband's legal obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

O R D E R

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.08.2018 in MC No.339/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

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

3. The Family Court found that there is continuous ill-treatment from the side of the petitioner and therefore the respondent is living separately. The Family Court considered the harassment made by the petitioner in detail in the impugned order. This Court, using the revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with such a fact finding by the Family Court. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Family Court considered that, as evident by Exts.A2 to A7, the petitioner has got properties. The petitioner was admittedly in Jeddha for nine years. It is also found that the petitioner has got partnership business in a lorry and sawmill. In such circumstances, the Family Court fixed the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the same.

4. 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 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.”

5. In Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [ 1978 KHC 607 ] the Apex Court 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 s