Shinu Kumar S Pillai vs Bindu Sukumara Pillai

C.S.Dias, J

The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C.No.38/2014 of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- from the date of application. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court.

Brief facts:

The respondent had filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), inter-alia, asserting that she was married to the revision petitioner on 24.06.2010 at Chottanikkara Devi Temple and they resided together as husband and wife at the residence of the revision petitioner at Chathannoor Village. The revision petitioner is employed in Muscat and is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The revision petitioner deserted the respondent since 16.10.2012 and has refused to maintain her. The respondent requires Rs.10,000/- for her monthly maintenance. Hence, the application.

The revision petitioner through his power of attorney holder filed a written objection refuting the allegations in the application. He contended that there was no valid marriage between him and the respondent. In fact, the respondent and one ‘Krishna Kumar’ had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the revision petitioner and they refused to return the said amount to him. Instead of returning the amount, the respondent has fraudulently filed the present application. The respondent is running a security service along with Krishna Kumar and is earning a monthly income of not less than Rs.10,000/-. The revision petitioner is only earning Rs.15,000/-. He has to maintain his parents. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

In the trial, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A3 in evidence. The revision petitioner did not let in any evidence.

The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5000/-.

It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed.

Heard; Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Binny Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order?

The cardinal contention of the revision petitioner is that, there is no valid marriage between him and the respondent.

In Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathy v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr. [2011 KHC 4708], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the validity of the marriage cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code. The above position has been reiterated by this Court in Sivadasan P.K. v. Jainy and another [2021 (2) KHC 242].

It is to be remembered that, even though the revision petitioner had raised a contention that there was no valid marriage between him and the respondent, he had not mounted the box and let in any evidence to substantiate his contention. It is on the basis of the uncontroverted assertions made by the respondent, who was examined as PW1, that the Family Court has decided the matter and passed the impugned order.

In the celebrated decision in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors. [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the provision of maintenance is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children, who fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and reinforced by Article 39.

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.[(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.

It is well settled in a plethora of judgments that the Courts are permitted to do some guesswork in arriving at the notional income of the husband/father and fixing the quantum of maintenance.

On an overall consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, especially the fact that the revision petitioner has not let in any evidence to controvert the assertions of PW1, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The revision petition is meritless and is only liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of the revision petition will not stand in the way of the revision petitioner seeking for declaration of the validity of his marriage with the respondent. Leaving open the said right, the revision petition is dismissed.