Partly allowed

V.v.Abdul Siyad v. C.P.Muhsina Sulhath

Kerala HC3 Oct 2019RPFC/338/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against the Family Court, the High Court modified the maintenance quantum for the minor child payable by the petitioner while confirming the amount for the wife, directing payment of arrears and future installments under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order to pay Rs.2,000/month for the minor child and confirmed Rs.3,000/month for the wife; directed payment of arrears and future maintenance.

V.v.Abdul Siyad Vs C.P.Muhsina Sulhath — 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 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

RP(FC)No.338 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC 173/2016 DATED 10-10-2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN MC :

¶8

V.V.ABDUL SIYAD, S/O. V.V. IBRAHIM, VAYALAM VALAPPIL HOUSE, AGED 36 YEARS, V.V. STORE, KATTIKANDAM, PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR DIST-670 633

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN :

¶11

1 C.P.MUHSINA SULHATH, D/O. ABDULLA K, AGED 27 YEARS, C.P. HOUSE, EANTHODE, P.O. PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DIST-670 561

¶12

2 MIDA FATHIMA C.P, D/O. MUHSINA, AGED 7 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY C.P. MUHSINA, D/O. ABDULLA, EANTHODE, PAPPINISSERY P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 561

¶13

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP(FC)No.338 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS , J. =======================================

¶18

R.P.(FC)No.338 of 2019

¶19

================================

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The above revision petition is directed against the impugned final order dated 10.10.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.No.173 of 2016 whereby R1 and R2 herein have claimed maintenance an amount of Rs.10,000/each per month.

¶23

Heard Sri.P.K.Mohammed Jameel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner had married the first respondent, and the second respondent is the child born in the wedlock. Thereafter the matrimony has been dissolved.

¶25

After taking evidence and hearing both sides, the Family Court have held that both sides have not produced sufficient evidence about the exact income of the petitioner herein. Hence, the family court held that the petitioner herein can be estimated to get atleast Rs.600/- per day, which is the average daily wage of an unskilled labourer and such works are in abundance in our State and so, it can safely be inferred that he will get atleast Rs.18,000/- per month.

¶26

RP(FC)No.338 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

On this basis, the Family Court has also found that the respondents are otherwise eligible for maintenance. Accordingly, the family court has ordered that the petitioner should pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the two respondents herein. The order is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶29

Sri.V.K.Mohammed Jameel P.K., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a salesman and he is not in a position to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein. Learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the first respondent is having any gainful employment and the present amount awarded is the minimum amount that is required for her.

¶30

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the Family Court cannot be seriously found fault with for having made the abovesaid findings and directions in the impugned order. However, taking into account the fact that R2 herein is a minor child aged 7 years and also the plea made by the petitioner regarding his limited income, it is ordered that the impugned order to the extent it orders that the petitioner should pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R2 herein (minor child) will stand modified and substituted the direction that petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to R2 herein (minor child) at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. However, the direction in the impugned order that the petitioner should pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to R1 herein will stand confirmed. However, it is made clear that in case R2 herein has a case that there is a material change in

¶31

RP(FC)No.338 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

circumstances later and the child requires higher amount for maintenance and that there is increase of income of the petitioner etc., then R2 herein through R1 herein will be at liberty to approach the family court at the appropriate time seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount as envisaged in Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall pay/deposit the entire unpaid arrears amount at the above said rates, for the period from the date of the petition upto 31.10.2019 within six weeks from today and the balance 50% thereof shall be deposited by him before the said court within six weeks thereafter. Upon deposit, the Family Court will forthwith release the said amount to R2 herein through R1 herein. The petitioner should also pay maintenance at the above said rates for the subsequent months from November, 2019 by the 10^th of every month. In case there is any default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the abovesaid direction within the said time line, then the respondents herein will be at liberty to seek execution of the impugned order as now modified by setting in motion the appropriate proceedings on the execution side of the family court concerned.

¶34

With these observations and directions, the above revision petition will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

rkj

JUDGE

V.v.Abdul Siyad v. C.P.Muhsina Sulhath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Abdul Siyad v. C.P.Muhsina Sulhath

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

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Kumar N.T. Vs Victim

K.G.Sajeev Vs Rathnamma

Gregory Simon T., Vs Shine P.Jacob

Eldhose Alias Vs Station House Officer

Sarojini Vs Somakumaran