RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 1 2025:KER:25932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 174 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 IN MC NO.78 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: SHAJI VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE, TECHNICIAN, KAVUMGAM PILLIL HOUSE, MADAKKARA, NENMENI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTSPETITIONERS: 1 DHAMSHEENA W/O. SHAJI VARGHESE, KALATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEPPOLIAN PARAMBA, MAHE, NOW RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. VADAKKUMBAD, PIN - 670 109. 2 ENOSH SHAJI VARGHESE S/O. SHAJI VARGHESE - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER DAMSHEENA, IST RESPONDENT. RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 2 2025:KER:25932 BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN OTHER PRESENT: SRI.K. RAKESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.NO.2/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:25932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 2 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN MC NO.78 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: 1 DAMSHEENA AGED 41 YEARS W/O.SHAJI VARGHESE, KALATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEPPOLIAN PARAMBA, MAHE NOW RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VADAKKUMBAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 ENOSH SHAJI VARGHESE S/O.SHAJI VARGHESE, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER DAMSHEENA, W/O.SHAJI VARGHESE, KALATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEPPOLIAN PARAMBA, MAHE NOW RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VADAKKUMBAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:25932 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SHAJI VARGHESE AGED 41 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, TECHNICIAN, KAVUMGAM PILLIL HOUSE, MADAKKARA, P.O.NENMENI, SUTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592. (SULTHAN BATHERI POLICE STATION LIMIT). BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.NO.174/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:25932 O R D E R These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery in M.C.No.78/2013 dated 20.04.2015. 2. The status of the parties is shown as in M.C before the Family Court. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the child of the counter petitioner. The petitioners filed the maintenance case against the counter petitioner claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each per month. The counter petitioner took a contention that the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home without any reason and she was living separately and hence, she was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. The Family Court accepted the said contention and declined maintenance to the 1st petitioner. However, the Family Court granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent. Challenging the order of the Family Court declining the maintenance to the 1st petitioner, the RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:25932 petitioners preferred RPFC No.2 of 2016. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 2nd petitioner, the counter petitioner filed RPFC No.174 of 2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No.174 of 2015 and the respondent in RPFC No.2 of 2016 is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in RPFC No.2 of 2016 and the respondents in RPFC No.174 of 2015. I have also perused the records. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner left the company of the counter petitioner and she was living separately. According to her, she was justified by a valid reason to live separately. It is specifically contended that she was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the counter petitioner and that was why she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately. The said case set up by the 1st petitioner was denied by the counter petitioner. 5. A husband is legally and morally bound to provide RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 7 2025:KER:25932 maintenance to his wife. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband who has sufficient means, is not absolute. A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintainance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. It is crucial to assess whether the wife's decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance. [Paul George v. Emarin Paul (2025 KLT OnLine 1524) ] Thus, the crucial question is whether there is any evidence on record for the 1st petitioner to live apart from the counter petitioner. 6. In the petition for maintenance itself, the 1st petitioner has clearly pleaded that after the marriage, the counter petitioner and his family members treated her with cruelty and refused to provide maintenance. In her evidence, she has categorically RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 8 2025:KER:25932 deposed that she was ill-treated by the counter petitioner and her in-laws. It is specifically stated that because of the cruelty of the counter petitioner's family members, she could not live with them and so, she left the matrimonial home and is depending upon her parents. She has also deposed that ill-treatment by the counter petitioner and her in-laws resulted in abortion two times. However, the Family Court did not accept this evidence let in by the 1st petitioner for the reason that the 1st petitioner did not specifically state each and every aspect of cruelty or harassment meted out to her at the hands of the counter petitioner. I cannot accept the said finding of the Family Court. The 1st petitioner entered into the box and clearly stated that she was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the counter petitioner. Even though she was cross-examined in length nothing tangible could be elicited to discredit her testimony. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence given by the 1st petitioner that she was forced to live separately from the counter petitioner on account of the cruelty. Hence, the rejection of claim of RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 9 2025:KER:25932 maintenance to the 1st petitioner cannot be justified. I hold that the 1st petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the counter petitioner. 7. The petitioners have pleaded that the counter petitioner is a Technician and earns Rs.50,000/- per month. They have also stated that he earns Rs.40,000/- per month from his landed property and altogether his monthly income would come to Rs.90,000/-. The counter petitioner has admitted that he is doing agricultural work. But according to him, he earns only a small amount. But he did not disclose his exact income. 8. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the 1st petitioner can be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The maintenance granted by the Family Court to the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be absolutely reasonable, considering the requirement of the 2nd petitioner. In the result, RPFC No.2 of 2016 stands allowed. The counter petitioner is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of RPFC NOs.174 OF 2015 & 2 OF 2016 10 2025:KER:25932 Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) to the 1st petitioner from the date of the petition, over and above, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court to the 2nd petitioner. RPFC No.174 of 2015 stands dismissed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS