Revised the Family Court order requiring the petitioner to pay maintenance. Ordered payment at reduced rates with a condition to deposit 50% of arrears within six weeks.
Order modified to direct petitioner to pay Rs.6,000/month to respondent 1 and Rs.2,500/month to respondent 2, with a directive to deposit 50% of arrears within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 320/2017 DATED 03-12-2018 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MOHAMED RASHID M.P. AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MOHAMED M.P. MANNOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, KARATHUR DESOM, CODACAL (PO), THIRUNAVAYA VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 108
BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH M.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FATHIMA K. AGED 27 YEARS, D/O HAMZA HAJI, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM, KURUKA DESOM, KURUKA (PO) KALPAKANCHERY VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 551.
2 AISHA DIYANA M.P. AGED 2 YEARS, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM, KURUKA DESOM, KURUKA (PO), KALPAKANCHERY VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 551, (REPD. BY MOTHER FATHIMA K, 1ST RESPONDENT ) R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJMAL
THIS REV. PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================== R.P.(FC)No.120 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2019
ORDER
The aforecaptioned revision petition filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed to impugn the final order dated 03.12.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Tirur in M.C.No.320/2017. Whereby, the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein) has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to R-1 herein and at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to R-2 herein with effect from the date of the maintenance claim petition (31.08.2017).
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
3
business at Thiruvananthapuram and that he is earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per month. On this basis, the respondents herein/petitioners therein had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to R-1 herein and Rs.5,000/- per month to R-2 herein (minor son). Further that, R-1 herein is now a BDS student, who require substantial amount for her education and for her day-to-day expenses, etc. Initially, the Family Court had directed the revision petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance to R-2 herein (minor son). But the revision petitioner had failed to pay the said interim maintenance properly even after repeated directions. Later, he abstained from participating the court proceedings and accordingly, the Family Court had set him ex-parte. Thereafter, the revision petitioner had filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order and the said application to set aside the ex-parte order was allowed on condition that the revision petitioner should pay the entire arrears of interim maintenance to the minor son. Later, the revision petitioner had filed yet another application seeking extension of time, which was extended by the Family Court. The Family Court has noticed that even thereafter the revision petitioner has failed to pay the interim maintenance and
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
4
hence the application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. The R-1 herein had filed proof affidavit. The Family Court found that the respondents herein have no sufficient evidence to establish their claim that they are entitled for the maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively and it was found that the said claimed amounts are excessive. The Family Court has noted that though R-1 herein was a student of BDS course, there is no justification for claiming such a huge amount. After taking into account, the social and economic backgrounds of both the parties and the attendant circumstances, the Family Court has ordered to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to R-1 herein and at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to R-2 herein from the date of the petition. This Court while admitting the above revision petition has passed interim order dated 29.03.2019 in Crl.M.A.No.1/2019 in this R.P(F.C) directing that the operation, enforcement and execution of the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Tirur in the said M.C will stand stayed, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner herein should pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- within one month and a further amount of Rs.20,000/- within another one month and should
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
5
pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents. The respondents had earlier complained that the revision petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions imposed thereon in the order dated 29.03.2019 in this R.P(F.C). On 08.07.2019, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has already paid an altogether amount of Rs.10,000/-, etc. Now Sri.M.P.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner has paid the entire up-to-date arrears, except for an outstanding balance of Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus it is seen that even today, the petitioner has not complied with the conditional interim order and hence, it is not right and proper for this Court to keep this revision petition and the stay orders pending. Both sides have made their submissions.
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
6
RPFC.No.120 OF 2019
7
amounts already paid by the petitioner to the respondents herein for the abovesaid period could be adjusted. In case, the revision petitioner does not comply with the abovesaid directions either in whole or in part, then the respondents herein will be at liberty to file execution petition before the Family Court, so as to seek execution of the directions made by this Court hereinabove.
With these observations and directions, the above R.P(F.C) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court requires modification.
Whether the revision petitioner's failure to comply with interim stay order affects the disposal of the revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohamed Rashid M.P.
Fathima K.
Aisha DIYana M.P.
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
