Allowed

Abdul Rasheed v. Noushida

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017RPFC/118/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition holding that the family court ought to have stated reasons for awarding interim maintenance. The order was set aside, the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, and the petitioner directed to deposit maintenance arrears. Non-deposit attracted coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Order impugned set aside; matter remitted; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 as arrears.

Abdul Rasheed Vs Noushida — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

RPFC.No. 118 of 2017 ()

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT IN THE MC:

¶7

ABDUL RASHEED AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. JAKKEERI KUNHIMUHAMMED, JAKKEERI HOUSE, CHANJALINGAL, CHATTIPARAMBU AMSOM, CHANJAL DESOM, KODOOR PANCHAYATH, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE MC:

¶10

NOUSHIDA,

¶11

AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. PADIKKAL ABDUL ASEES, PADIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHOOR POST, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, PUTHOOR AMSOM, THIROORRANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503.

¶12

RAYAN RASHEED, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O. NOUSHIDA, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, RAYAN RASHEED, 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN PADIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHOOR POST, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, PUTHOOR AMSOM, THIROORRANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503.

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

R.P. (FC) No. 118 of 2017

¶16

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2017

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite having service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondents.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below did not state any reason for awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 2,500/- to the 2^nd petitioner and in the said circumstances, the said order cannot be sustained.

¶20

It is seen from the order impugned that the court below as per the order impugned granted an interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the first respondent and Rs. 2500/- to the 2^nd respondent. It is seen

¶21

-2-

¶22

R.P. (FC) No. 118 of 2017

¶23

from the order impugned that the counter was filed by the petitioner herein. However, no reason has been stated by the court below for passing the order impugned. Therefore, the said order cannot be said to be a speaking order and consequently, the same is not sustainable.

¶24

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below for passing order afresh, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

¶25

The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards arrears of interim maintenance before the court below within one month from today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the above amount, the court below shall be at liberty to take

¶26

-3-

¶27

R.P. (FC) No. 118 of 2017

¶28

coercive steps to realise the said amount from the petitioner.

¶29

If the amount is deposited, the first respondent herein shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount.

¶30

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶31

ani/

¶32

/true copy/

¶33

P.S. to Judge

Abdul Rasheed v. Noushida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed v. Noushida

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

Sanir.C.a @ Shani Vs State of Kerala

C.P. Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Ramla Vs State of Kerala

Ajith S. Vs Monisha

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala