High Court dismissed revision petition challenging maintenance award. Found no illegality in Family Court order fixing Rs.2,000 monthly for father based on evidence of illness and lack of other income.
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 T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RPFC.No. 264 of 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 653/2013 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 11-11-2015
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ABHILASH T S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, THANNIKKAL HOUSE,THRIKKANAPURAM(PO), PIN-679573,KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
GOPALAKRISHNAN V.K S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, THAYYIL HOUSE, PALACHIRMAD,KOORIYAD(PO),676839, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No. 264 of 2016
2
ORDER
The respondent in M.C.No.653 of 2013 before the Family Court, Tirur challenges the order of monthly maintenance passed by the court under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.11.2015 awarding Rs.2000/- per month in favour of his father, petitioner in M.C.
advanced two contentions before this Revisional Court
RPFC.No. 264 of 2016
3
namely:
of income also. The petitioner has other liabilities and his monthly income is meagre.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the father being physically ailing and suffering from cardiac disease is not in a position to earn by himself and further has no landed property or source of livelihood.
father was laid up due to cardiac illness. More so, the documents produced before the court below speaks for volumes that the father was under treatment for
cardiac illness for a substantial period of time. Ext.R1 salary certificate of the petitioner herein
RPFC.No. 264 of 2016
4
shows that he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.13,873/-
though the net salary was much lesser after monthly deductions. The allegation that the respondent, father has any property or any other source of income has not
been proved by any evidence on record. On reappreciating facts and evidence, I have no reason to disagree with the view of the court below fixing RS.2,000/-taking it as the reasonable amount of monthly maintenance in favour of the father, respondent. I am satisfied that the impugned order is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Finding that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the court below, the same is confirmed. None of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is unsustainable either in facts, evidence or law.
In the result, the Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed.
T.V.ANILKUMAR
SCS/19.03.19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order fixing Rs.2,000 monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is lawful given the son's admission of father's cardiac illness.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhilash T
Gopalakrishnan V.K
T.V. Anilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
