IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TH WEDNESDAY, THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 38 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2022 IN MC NO.176 OF

2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

MUHAMMED MEHAROOF M.C AGED 36 YEARS MUSLIYARAKATHU CHOLAYIL HOUSE, VALILLAPPUZHA, VAZHAKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 673640 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ SRI.AMARNATH R LAL SMT.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SRI.P.M.MATHEW SHRI.SANALDEV E.P.

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

1 FATHIMA MUFEEDA AGED 28 YEARS KALLENGAL HOUSE, DARUL RAHMA, CHULLIKKODE, VATTALLUR P.O PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676507

2 AYMEN MEHDI AGED 5 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED MEHAROOF, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT) RESIDING AT KALLENGAL HOUSE, DARUL RAHMA, CHULLIKKODE, VATTALLUR P.O PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676507 BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

RP (FC) No.38 of 2023 -------------------------------

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025

ORDER

This revision is filed against the order dated 24.11.2022 in MC 176/2020 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents @ Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. Heard.

3. Admittedly, the 1^st respondent is a divorced Muslim woman. The petitioner has no case that he paid the amount due to the 1^st respondent as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. If that is the case, the 1^st respondent is entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 Cr.P.C. A divorced woman is also entitled to maintenance till she remarries. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the eligibility of the 1^st respondent to get maintenance. The 2^nd respondent is the child of the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the paternity. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay maintenance to the child also. The petitioner is a well-qualified person, a B.Tech Engineer.

The quantum of maintenance is based on the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent is also employed. But the Family Court considered this contention and rejected it, on the ground that there is no material to show that the 1st respondent is receiving income. The ability of the petitioner to pay maintenance and the inability of the respondents to sustain themselves are found by the Family Court. These are findings of fact in which this Court cannot invoke the powers of revisional jurisdiction. I see no merit in this revision petition.

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