Allowed

Muhammed Shafi v. Jamsheena

Kerala HC13 Jun 2019RPFC/112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Family Court's order enhancing maintenance for minor children, remitting the matter for reconsideration. It directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance, referred parties to mediation, and mandated the Family Court to complete proceedings within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; main matter remitted to Family Court; interim maintenance directed; parties referred to mediation within 6 weeks; Family Court to dispose within 4 months.

Muhammed Shafi Vs Jamsheena — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

RPFC.NO.112 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 384/2016 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, KUNNANCHOLAYIL HOUSE, KOLAKAD, KUTTIPPURAM(PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

1 JAMSHEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY,

¶12

2 FATHIMATH SHAHANA, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR)

¶13

3 ABDUL MISHAB MON, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR) (MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JAMSHEENA. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARINKAPARA HOUSE, EDAKULAM, THIRUNAVAYA(PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676301TIRUR POLICE STATION LIMIT)

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶15

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

R.P.(FC) No. 112 of 2019

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Earlier in M.C.No.213/2013, an application under Sec.125(1) of the CrPC filed by the wife and children, the Family Court had passed final order dated 16.1.2015 directing that maintenance should be given the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the two minor children concerned in pursuance of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Later the wife has filed an application under Sec.127 of the CrPC as M.C.No.384/2016 on behalf of the minor children seeking enhancement of maintenance to be paid to the children on the ground of huge increase in cost of living, and other expenses. The Family Court after taking evidence and after hearing both sides has now found that the plea for enhancement of maintenance is now made out and has accordingly directed that the husband should pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to R-2 herein (minor daughter now aged 16 years) and at the rate of Rs.4,000/per month to R-3 herein (minor son) with effect from the date of

¶21

..3..

¶22

R.P.(FC) No. 112 / 2019

¶23

petition (22.10.2016). It is this order dated 1.2.2019 rendered by

¶24

the Family Court, Tirur in M.C.No.384/2016 granting enhancement of maintenance amounts to minor children that is under challenge in this RP(FC).

¶25

Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

While admitting this RP(FC), this Court has passed an interim order dated 28.3.2019, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

¶27

“It is ordered in the interest of justice that the operation and enforcement of the order dated 1.2.2019 in M.C.No.384/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur, will remain stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner should pay maintenance @ Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondents 2 and 3 directly to the bank account of the 1^st respondent. This order will be in force till 31.5.2019.”

¶28

It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel, that he has

¶29

complied with the abovesaid interim direction issued by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner has lost his job abroad and now he is in financial doldrums, and that those aspects of the matters has not been effectively considered by the Family Court, etc. Counsel for the petitioner would also submit

¶30

that there is strong possibility for mediation, and that this Court

¶31

..4..

¶32

R.P.(FC) No. 112 / 2019

¶33

may direct the parties to initially seek the option of mediation settlement.

¶34

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the matter could be remitted for reconsideration of such aspects, and until a fresh decision is taken by the Family Court, the petitioner should pay interim maintenance to the two minor children at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month respectively to R-2 and R-3 herein from the date of petition (22.10.2016), until final orders are passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.384/2016 which is to be remitted. Accordingly for effectuating such a remit, it is ordered that the impugned order dated 1.2.2019 rendered by the Family Court, Tirur in M.C. No.384/2016 will stand set aside, and the main matter in M.C. 384/2016 will stand remitted to the Family Court, Tirur for consideration afresh.

¶35

The Family Court concerned will also ensure that both parties are immediately referred for mediation to the nearest Mediation Centre and the Mediation Centre concerned will endeavor to complete the mediation process within 6 weeks. If the mediation process is successful, then the Family Court may dispose

¶36

..5..

¶37

R.P.(FC) No. 112 / 2019

¶38

of the matter recording the terms and conditions of mediation settlement, and in terms of the said settlement. However if the mediation process turns up to a failure, then the Family Court will have to decide the matter afresh.

¶39

In that eventuality, the Family Court may give opportunity to both sides to adduce additional evidence and then after hearing both sides, may pass orders disposing of M.C.No.384/2016 without much delay. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the Family Court within 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Until orders are passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.384/2016, the petitioner will pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month to R-2 herein and at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R-3 herein from the date of petition (22.10.2016) upto the date of disposal of the said Maintenance Case by the Family Court.

¶40

The Family Court will ascertain from the respondents herein as to the entire arrears in that regard has been duly paid by the petitioner herein, and if not, steps should be taken to ensure that the said direction is complied with by the petitioner in letter

¶41

..6..

¶42

R.P.(FC) No. 112 / 2019

¶43

and spirit. The aforesaid direction to pay interim maintenance is only an interim arrangement made by this Court pending disposal of the main matter by the Family Court, and the said direction in the interim arrangement shall not in any manner influence or trammel the Family Court in rendering the main matter which is to be done independently.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the above RP(FC) will stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

MMG

Muhammed Shafi v. Jamsheena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shafi v. Jamsheena

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

Ajayakumar J Vs State of Kerala

Shaffi Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Nair Vs State of Kerala

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Midhun Raj, Vs the State of Kerala

Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala