Having Insufficient Means Cannot Exonerate Husband From Providing Maintenance To Wife If All Factors U/s. 125 CrPC Are Satisfied: Kerala HC

While acknowledging that the dominant purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure neglected wife and child from a state of destitution, distress and starvation, the Kerala High Court held that the maintenance allowance should be sufficient to meet the medical and other expenses of the first Petitioner (wife) and enable her to lead a normal life to the extent possible.

At the same time, the High Court clarified that while considering the maintenance claims of children, denial of love and affection is also a determinative factor, even though the loss cannot be compensated with money.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun however observed that “The court should also be convinced about the existence of the following factors; i) that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. (ii) the claimant do not have the means to maintain herself/himself. (iii) the respondent has sufficient means for maintaining the claimant”.

Advocate M. Shajna appeared for the Petitioners, whereas Advocate T. R. Hari Krishnan appeared for the Respondent.

In a nutshell, the first Petitioner and her child (Second Petitioner) have filed the present revision petition being unsatisfied with the order of the Family Court concerning the quantum of maintenance. Whereas, another revision petition was filed by the husband challenging the order of maintenance contending that he does not have sufficient income to maintain the Petitioners.

The petitioner had contended that she had suffered from paralysis and is currently incurring huge expenses for medicines. Also, the child is aged 10 years and is being neglected by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contention that it was Petitioner’s father and brother who forced the Respondent to be away from the Petitioner, which caused a stray in their relationship thus, leading to the divorce.

After perusal of facts and relying on the decision of Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [2019 (12) SCC 303], the Bench observed that the Respondent is an able-bodied headload worker/packer, aged only 43 years and that all three factors of Section 125 of CrPC, exist.

The Bench further observed that the fact that Respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the Petitioners is indisputable, and the contention that the first Petitioner has no means to maintain herself and the child is also un-controvertible.

The High Court also elucidated that the fact that the child is studying in an aided school and the fees are only a meagre amount cannot be the basis for determining the quantum of maintenance.

Therefore, noting that the present case projects the plight of a hapless lady and the pathetic situation that the innocent child is forced to experience, the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband and enhanced the monthly allowance.

Cause Title: Dheera N.G and Anr. v. Simesh S.

Click here to read/download the Order