Dismissed

Asharaf Babu v. Rasli

Kerala HC22 Aug 2017RPFC/343/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order enhancing monthly maintenance for a wife and minor children. The Court upheld the lower family court's finding that the petitioner is capable of earning and maintaining the family, refusing to interfere with the awarded quantum.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of revision petition; Revision petitioner granted two months to pay the entire arrears of maintenance.

Asharaf Babu Vs Rasli — 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017/31ST SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

RPFC.No. 343 of 2017 () ------------------------

¶6

MC 163/2016 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶8

ASHARAF BABU, S/O.KURUNIYAN BAVA, KURUNIYAN HOUSE, ` OTHUKKUNGAL P.O., OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1. RASLI D/O.P.P.HAMZA, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.

¶12

2. ASHKAR-MINOR S/O.ASHARAF BABU, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER-GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT-RASLI, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.

¶13

3. HASNA-MINOR D/O.ASHARAF BABU, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER-GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT-RASLI, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STK

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

--------------------------------

¶17

R.P.(F.C.) No.343 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2017

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner is the respondent in

¶21

M.C.No.163/2016 on the files of the court below. As per order dated 25.1.2011 in M.C.No.520/2010, the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2500/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.1500/- each to each of the second and third respondents herein under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondents filed M.C.No.163/2016 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance. The court below as per the order impugned directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.3500/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.2000/- each to each of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein towards their monthly maintenance.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶23

The respondents herein would contend that the

¶24

R.P.(F.C.) No.343 of 2017

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

revision petitioner is a real estate broker, who is having other business also. He is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from his business. He is also having an income of Rs.25,000/- per month from his landed property. The revision petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that he is a helper for painting, getting only Rs.8500/- per month.

¶27

It is not disputed that the first respondent is not having any job or source of income for the maintenance of the respondents. The second and third respondents herein are aged 17 years and 16 years respectively. They need money for their food, education, clothing and other welfare activities.

¶28

The court below found that the revision petitioner can easily earn Rs.12,000/- per month, if he works for 20 days. It is common knowledge that even a coolie in Kerala would get not less than Rs.1000/- per day.

¶29

It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is

¶30

R.P.(F.C.) No.343 of 2017

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

capable of maintaining himself. He is an able bodied and healthy person. Therefore, it is his duty to maintain his wife and children. Considering the status of the parties, the needs of the respondents and probable income of the revision petitioner, the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance as stated above.

¶33

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find anything to hold that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive or unreasonable, warranting interference by this Court.

¶34

In the result, this R.P.(F.C.) stands dismissed.

¶35

The revision petitioner is granted two months to pay the entire arrears of maintenance.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

STK

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Asharaf Babu v. Rasli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asharaf Babu v. Rasli

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

Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

Mariyakutty Vs State of Kerala

Sreenij.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shanthi Roselin Vs State of Kerala

Sinoby Vs Sindhu Sinoby

Anoop Vs Pushpakumari