Disposed

Sunil E.S v. Rashni M.N

Kerala HC5 Jul 2012RPFC/145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order. The Court confirmed the Family Court's order directing the husband to pay maintenance but directed the Family Court to dispose of the proceeding within four months, reserving merit on alleged settlement issues.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed interim maintenance order; directed Family Court to decide pending case within four months.

Sunil E.S Vs Rashni M.N — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

RPFC.No. 145 of 2012 () ----------------------(CRMP.NO.1306/2011 IN MC.215/2010 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR DATED 13.1.2012)

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶7

SUNIL E.S, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. ETTUPADIKKAL SUBRAMANYAN, PURANATTUKARA P.O. THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SHRI. T.K.VIPIN DAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

RASHNI M.N, AGED 28 YEARS

¶11

S/O. MULLAKKAL NARADAN, URAKAM PUTHIYARKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR-680552.

¶12

MINOR ASWADOSH, AGED 4 YEARS S/O. PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT RASHMI M.N., URAKAM PATHIYARKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR-680552.

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O. KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶15

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATOOR

¶16

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

al.

¶18

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. =========================== R.P. (F.C.) NO. 145/2012

¶19

=========================== Dated this the 5^th day of July 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent are husband and wife. The wife approached the Family Court, Thrissur by filing M.C.No. 215/2010 seeking maintenance from the husband. Criminal M.P.No. 1306/2011 was filed in the said M.C. seeking direction to the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance. After hearing the rival contentions, the Family Court passed the impugned order on 13-1-2012 directing the respondent therein/the revision petitioner herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the 1^st petitioner/the 1^st respondent herein and Rs. 1500/- to the minor petitioner/the 2^nd respondent herein from 1-12-2011 onwards until further orders. This revision petition is directed against the said order.

¶22

R.P. (F.C.) NO. 145/2012 # 2#

¶23

Essentially, the defence of the petitioner herein set

¶24

up was that the parties had earlier entered into an agreement and in terms of the conditions therein he had already paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the 1^st respondent. That apart, it is his contention that she works at a private college with a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. In view of the order, I propose to pass in this revision petition. I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. Evidently, the M.C. is pending before the Family Court, Thrissur. As noticed herein before the contention of the revision petitioner is that in terms of the settlement arrived between himself and the 1^st respondent he had already paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the agreement the first respondent has also relinquished her claim for maintenance. Necessarily those are matters of evidence.

¶25

In the circumstances, this revision petition is

¶26

R.P. (F.C.) NO. 145/2012 # 3#

¶27

disposed of confirming the interim order passed for interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Thrissur but, with a further direction to expedite the proceedings in M.C.No. 215/2010. The learned Judge of the Family Court will consider the prospects of disposing M.C. No. 215/2010, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months, in view of the circumstances expatiated earlier. It is made clear that this court has not made any observation regarding the merits of the contentions of the revision petitioner as to the existence of agreement between the parties or with respect to its binding nature.

¶28

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶29

kvr/

Sunil E.S v. Rashni M.N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil E.S v. Rashni M.N

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

Mohanan M.A. Vs Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

Beenakumari Vs the State of Kerala

T.Raveendranath Vs K.G.Mohanlal

R.Balachandran Vs M.S.Jaya

Payapura Muhammed Haneef Vs N.K.Abdulrahiman

Sudheer Vs Dileep