Allowed

T.Noorjahan v. Saithalavi

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016RPFC/371/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court increased maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,500 per month, allowing further enhancement needs arise, and dismissed the child's claim for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance payable to the petitioner by the respondent was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of filing of M.C.No.142/2012.

T.Noorjahan Vs Saithalavi — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RPFC.No. 371 of 2015 ()

¶6

MC 142/2012 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM ============

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN MC:

¶8

T.NOORJAHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUTTY AHAMMED RESIDING AT THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE KARUNALAYAPADI, WANDUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN MC:

¶11

1. SAITHALAVI, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KUNHALAN, CHATHAKUNNU, MANJERI POST MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶12

2. AJMAL, S/O.SAITHALAVI, RESIDING AT THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE KARUNALAYAPDI, WANDUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.P.(FC)NO. 371/2015

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED in the NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 23.03.2015

¶18

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 DATED 13.02.2012

¶19

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM IN M.C.No.142/2012 DATED 31.08.2015

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A.TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶28

The petitioner herein and her child obtained a maintenance order against the 1^st respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. From the Family Court, Malappuram, in 2005. The Family Court ordered Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.450/- per month to the child, in M.C.No.23/2005. In 2012 she brought an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. as M.C.No.142/2012 claiming enhancement on the ground of change in circumstances. The 1^st respondent entered appearance and contested the proceeding on the ground that there has not been any change or enhancement in his income. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court Judge allowed M.C.No.142/2012 in part on 31.08.2015, enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs.1,000/per month to the petitioner from the date of filing the petition, and disallowing the claim of the child. She is not satisfied.

¶29

The 1^st respondent herein received notice in this proceeding, but he opted to remain absent. The 2^nd respondent

¶30

¶31

R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015

¶32

is the son whose claim for enhancement stands disallowed.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court requires modification by this Court in revision. The petitioner is now aged 42 years, and the age of the respondent shown in the petition is 46 years. Order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed by the trial court long back in 2005. The petitioner's claim for enhancement came after seven years, in 2012. What she claims is Rs.5,000/- per month in the changed circumstances. There is no doubt or dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner's needs and necessities have considerably increased. We are now in 2015. It is common experience that the cost of living has always been on the increase. There is nothing to show that there has not been any increase in the income of the respondent. On the other hand there are materials to show that there has been considerable increase in the cost of living. Change in social circumstances including cost of living will have to be considered by the court in fixing the quantum of maintenance. It has come out in evidence

¶34

¶35

R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015

¶36

that the petitioner has been residing in a rented house, and she has to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as rent. The child has now become major. He does not require maintenance from the father now. On a consideration of all relevant aspects including the change in circumstances, and also the needs and necessities of the petitioner, I find that an amount of Rs.2,500/- will be the proper and adequate amount of maintenance subject to further enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., as and when needs and necessities increase.

¶37

In the result, this revision is allowed, modifying the impugned order of the trial court, that the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner by the respondent shall be Rs.2,500/- per month, payable from the date of filing of M.C.No.142/2012.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

T.Noorjahan v. Saithalavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Noorjahan v. Saithalavi

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

Jayanandakumar v. Vs Dr.Rajan N.Khobragrade IAS

Sahar K.K. Vs Thasleena

Firoz Khan Vs Afra N.

Shajeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jabbar P.P. Vs Station House Officer

Junais Vs Sumayya