Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
RAJEEVAN.M – Appellant
Versus
JEESHA P. – Respondent
RPFC NO. 476 OF 2017 | RPFC NO. 409 OF 2017 | MC NO.45 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.R. Surendran
For the Respondents: Sri.K.C. Santhosh Kumar
The earning capacity of a wife does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance from her husband, reinforcing the principle of social justice for women and children.
Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. Section 125 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Maintenance claim by wife and children - Wife denied maintenance on grounds of sufficient means and separation - The Court held that even if a wife earns, it does not bar her from claiming maintenance. The determination of maintenance must consider the overall circumstances, including the ability of the husband to provide support. (Paras 6-11)
(B) Maintenance and Social Justice - Section 125 stresses social justice, particularly for women and children, and must be construed liberally for their welfare. The criteria for maintenance entitlement do not negate the support obligation based on earning capability. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The wife and two minor children requested maintenance from husband, which was partially denied by the Family Court. The wife argued that she is not employed, while the husband claimed she was a tailor.
Findings of Court:
The Court corrected the Family Court's decision, establishing that the wife is entitled to maintenance, recognizing the husband's sufficient means and the welfare of the children.
Issues: The main issues centered on the wife's entitlement to maintenance given her asserted lack of means and the claim of the wife's voluntary separation without valid reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a wife's earning ability does not negate her claim for maintenance, emphasizing that social justice is a guiding principle.
Result: RP(FC) No.476/2017 dismissed; RP(FC) No.409/2017 allowed partially.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts related to maintenance claim and family relationships. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintenance entitlement and financial capability. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning and final quantum of maintenance determined. (Para 6) |
| 4. court observations on earning capabilities and social justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final conclusion regarding maintenance claims. (Para 11) |
“C.R.”
ORDER
Both these revision petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery, in M.C. No.45/2017 dated 09.08.2017.
2. The first petitioner in the maintenance case before the Family Court is the legally wedded wife (for short ‘the wife’) of the respondent (for short ‘the husband’). Two children were born out of the wedlock. They are petitioners 2 and 3 before the Family Court. The wife and children filed the maintenance case against the husband, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- each, respectively. The Family Court, after trial, rejected the claim of the wife for maintenance and granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- each to the children. The wife filed RP(FC) No.409/2017, challenging the rejection of her claim for maintenance as well as the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children, and the husband filed RP(FC) No.476/2017, challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children.
3. I have heard Sri.R. Surendran, the learned counsel for the husband, as well as Sri.K.C. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the wife and children.
4. The learned counsel for the wife and children submitted that the Family Court went wrong in declining maintenance to the wife. According to the counsel, the finding of the Family Court that the wife can maintain herself is factually incorrect and contrary to the evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that, considering the means of the husband and the requirements of the children, the monthly maintenance of Rs 6,000/- each awarded to the children is low. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the husband submitted that it has come out in evidence that the wife is a tailor by profession and she earns income out of the said profession for her livelihood, and hence the Family Court has rightly rejected her claim for maintenance. The learned counsel further submitted that, going by Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 , both the parents are liable to maintain the children, and hence the wife is also liable to contribute towards the maintenance of the children. According to the learned counsel, if that is considered, the monthly maintenance granted to the children is on the higher side.
5. The marital relationship and the paternity of the two children are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the husband and the wife are living separately, and the children are living with the wife. The maintenance to the wife was denied by the Family Court on two grounds: (i) the wife is a tailor by profession and has sufficient means to maintain herself, and (ii) the wife left the company of the husband without any valid reason and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance.
6. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. The object of the provision being one to achieve social justice for the marginalised members of society - destitute wives, hapless children and parents, it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife, children and parents. As per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS), the husband who has means is liable to provide maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, it is settled by way of a catena of decisions that ‘unable to maintain herself’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) does not mean that the wife must be in a state of penury. InRajnes
