COURTS CAN’T PERMIT FORMER IN-LAWS TO REOPEN MATRIMONIAL ISSUES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF CHILD WELFARE WHEN THE NATURAL GUARDIAN IS ALIVE & RESPONSIBLE – HC SB MADRAS
November 24, 2025SUPREME COURT EVICTS TENANT FOR FIVE YEARS OF UNPAID RENT, SLAMS “ABSURD” PROCEDURAL DELAYS
November 24, 2025SUMESH A V BABIJA BALAKRISHNAN M, 2025 (RPFC 321/2025)
Name of the Court: Hon'ble Kerala High Court
The Family Court had relied on Surendran K v Aswin K S and Another [2015 (4) KLT 682], to negate the contentions of the husband, observing that the gross income must be considered for contemplating sufficient means under Section 125 CrPC for salaried employee.
Background of the Case
The respondents (wife and child) filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming that they had no income to maintain themselves. They alleged that the husband was employed as an Instructor at MES Engineering College, earning around ₹50,000 per month, and therefore sought maintenance of ₹15,000 for the wife and ₹5,000 for the child, covering both living and educational expenses.
The husband disputed this, stating:
-
His actual monthly income was only ₹19,574/- (net).
-
He needed ₹5,000 for his own living expenses including accommodation.
-
He had to support his aged parents.
-
He was paying LIC premiums and vehicle loan installments.
-
Therefore, he claimed he could not pay the maintenance awarded.
Family Court’s Findings
After evaluating evidence, including salary certificates (Ext.A1) and financial documents produced by the husband, the Family Court concluded:
-
Husband’s salary was ₹21,554 gross, ₹19,574 net.
-
Deductions toward LIC, GPF, insurance, and loan payments cannot reduce statutory maintenance liability.
-
The wife and child had no independent income.
-
Given their needs, ₹6,000 and ₹3,500 were reasonable.
Thus, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹9,500 per month in total.
Arguments Before the High Court
The husband argued:
-
His income was insufficient to pay the awarded maintenance.
-
His deductions (loan EMIs, LIC premium, etc.) must be considered.
-
The wife allegedly had income (though no proof was supplied).
The wife countered that:
-
The husband intentionally inflated deductions to reduce take-home salary.
-
She and the child had no income.
-
The awarded maintenance was minimal.
High Court’s Analysis
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s reasoning and relied heavily on the judgment Surendran K. v. Aswin K.S., 2015 (4) KLT 682, which held:
-
For salaried employees, “means” under Section 125 CrPC refers to gross earning capacity, not the reduced net salary after voluntary deductions.
-
Deductions for LIC, GPF, loans, insurance, etc., are personal savings or voluntary liabilities, not grounds to reduce maintenance.
-
Husbands often use tactics like taking loans or increasing statutory savings to falsely reduce take-home salary to escape maintenance—courts must reject this.
Applying this principle, the Court held:
-
The husband’s real income must include all gross earnings.
-
His liabilities are irrelevant to determining “means” for maintenance.
-
The wife and child have no income, and the minor child is still in school.
-
The amount of ₹6,000 and ₹3,500 is modest, even “insufficient” in today’s living conditions.
Conclusion
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s decision. The revision petition was dismissed. The husband was directed to clear all arrears within 30 days, failing which the wife and child may initiate execution proceedings. The maintenance order was affirmed as reasonable, justified, and legally sustainable.
