Dismissed

Manoj v. Bincy Thomas

Kerala HC29 Jun 2012RPFC/86/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Family Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the maintenance order. Upholding the lower court's fixation of Rs. 1,500/- as reasonable, the Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the respondent had sufficient means, thus warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed, the impugned order of maintenance is upheld.

Manoj Vs Bincy Thomas — 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

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

RPFC.No. 86 of 2012 () ---------------------MC.153/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY

¶6

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶7

MANOJ,, AGED 33 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM, KOCHU PARAMBIL (H), KANHILERI SREEKANDAPURAM (PO) KANNUR DISTRICT. (SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION LIMIT)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

BINCY THOMAS,, AGED 25 YEARS W/O MANOJ, KALAPURAKKAL, THUNDIYIL (PO) VELLAR VALLY AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-PIN 670001. (PERAVOOR POLICE STATIION LIMIT)

¶11

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶13

==========================

¶14

R.P.(FC). No.86 OF 2012

¶15

==========================

¶16

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2011 in MC.No.153 of 2011 of the Family Court, Thalassery. As per the said order, the revision petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent herein. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 12.7.2010. The respondent herein filed M.C.No.153 of 2011 seeking maintenance under section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent contended that she is unemployed and got no means to maintain herself. The petitioner herein is not caring to maintain her. It is with such allegations that the above referred miscellaneous case has been filed.

¶19

The petitioner herein contested the matter by contending

¶20

that the respondent had deserted him and she is living separately. It is

¶21

R.P.(FC).86/12

¶22

¶23

further contended that he is not having any job. According to the revision petitioner, respondent is a tailor. The respondent herein was examined as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as CPW1. The marriage has not been disputed. On careful evaluation of the oral evidence of PW1/the respondent herein the Family Court found that she got justifiable reasons for residing separately from the petitioner. The Family Court further found that the petitioner therein/the respondent herein is not having means to maintain herself and at the same time the petitioner herein is an able bodied and minded person. I have carefully gone through the impugned order. A perusal of the said order would reveal that all relevant aspects to ascertain whether the respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner herein have been given due consideration by the Family Court. The petitioner had not adduced any evidence at all to prove that the respondent herein is having sufficient means to maintain herself. When no evidence was let in by the revision petitioner to prove that the respondent herein is capable of maintaining herself or that she

¶24

R.P.(FC).86/12

¶25

¶26

incurred any legal disability disentitling her from claiming maintenance, there is no reason to deny maintenance to the respondent. PW1/respondent claimed Rs.3500/- per month as maintenance. Having considered the capacity of the petitioner herein and all other relevant aspects, the court below fixed Rs.1500/- as monthly maintenance. Fixation of that amount cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court. No case has been brought out by the petitioner to compel this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. This revision is, therefore, liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

R.P.(FC).86/12

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

September, 2010

¶34

R.P.(FC).86/12 5

Manoj v. Bincy Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. Bincy Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mytheen Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs N.P.Kunjumon

Marykutty Philip Vs P.G.Rajendran Nair

Janardhanan.T.N. Vs M.I.Rajeena

Bahuleyan Vs R.Syamnath