Dismissed

Yakoob v. Shajitha

Kerala HC25 Jun 2012OP (FC)/1957/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in revision, upheld the Family Court's order conditioning the setting aside of an ex parte maintenance order on the deposition of half the arrears, finding no illegality, unreasonableness, or injustice warranting Article 227 interference.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given one month from the date of order to deposit one half of the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.

Yakoob Vs Shajitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 1957 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------M.C.No.174/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶7

YAKOOB

¶8

S/O.ABDUL VAHAB, VADAKKETHARA HOUSE, KAVASSERY P.O.ALATHUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶10

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.M.NOOHUKUNJU SAHIB SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.SWATHY DAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶12

SHAJITHA D/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AMBAZHAMUKKU,

¶13

PATHANAPURAM HOUSE

¶14

KAVASSERY P.O., ALATHUR TALUK.

¶15

RISANA AGED 8 YEARS

¶16

D/O.PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT REP. BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENTSHAJITHA.

¶17

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(FC) No.1957/2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P-1	A COPY OF PETITION AS M.C.NO.174/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P-2	A COPY OF O.P 377/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P-3	A COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.P 377/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD IN M.C.NO.174/2010.
EXT.P-5	A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS C.M.P.775/2011 IN M.C. NO.174/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P-6	A COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.1.2012 IN C.M.P.NO.775/2011 IN M.C.NO.174/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶27

O.P.(F.C.) No.1957 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶31

The respondents, the wife and daughter of the petitioner, filed M.C.No.174 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, claiming maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of 2,500/- to the first respondent and 2,000/- to the second respondent. It was alleged that the petitioner/husband was employed in Gulf as an Aluminium fabricator. The petitioner/husband was ex-parte before the Family Court. The Family Court passed an order dated 30^th April, 2011 directing the petitioner/husband to pay 2,000/- to the first respondent and 1,000/- to the second respondent as maintenance from the date of petition. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.775 of 2011 to set aside the ex-parte order in M.C.No.174 of 2010. The Family Court allowed the

¶32

O.P.(FC) No.1957/2012

¶33

¶34

application by the order dated 4^th January, 2012 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit one half of the arrears of maintenance till date. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Family Court for setting aside the ex-parte order.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the respondents are the wife and child of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was working abroad. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has now come back to India. It is also submitted that the elder daughter of the petitioner is with him and that he is maintaining that child. The court below has given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case on the merits. The maintenance case was filed by the respondents in the year 2010. Even now it has not attained finality. The court below thought that as a condition for setting aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner should be directed to deposit one half of the arrears of maintenance. It cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is illegal, unreasonable

¶36

O.P.(FC) No.1957/2012

¶37

¶38

or unjust. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time from today to deposit one half of the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.

¶40

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶41

csl

Yakoob v. Shajitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakoob v. Shajitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamza Vs Saifunneesa

Abdul Rahim M. Vs Nejumu Kabeer

Selina @ Shini Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jaya Anand Pai Vs Kasthuri

Dileep Kumar.a Vs Sujitha

Lijoy Vs Ditty