Allowed

Muhammad Shafi v. Sheeja K.I.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2022RPFC/232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside a portion of the Family Court's order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., reducing the monthly maintenance for minor children from Rs.5,000 to Rs.4,000 each, while leaving the wife's maintenance intact.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance awarded to minor children Nos. 2 and 3 re-fixed at Rs.4,000 per month from the date of petition; maintenance to wife remained unaltered.

Muhammad Shafi Vs Sheeja K.I. — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶6

MC 86/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUHAMMAD SHAFI,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.C.P.PEELIKUTTY
RAWTHER, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR,
PAYYAMATTOM MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY
TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS
SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 SHEEJA K.I.,AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.RAWTHER, KIDARAKUZHIYIL VEEDU, PAYYAMATTOM MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, KULATHOOR P.O., KADIKAVU, PIN-695583.

¶11

2 MUHAMMED AMEER SHA,AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.SHEEJA K.I., KIDARAKUZHIYIL VEEDU, PAYYAMATTOM MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, KULATHOOR P.O., KADIKAVU, PIN-695583.

¶12

3 MUHAMMED AMEEN SHA,AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.SHEEJA K.I., KIDARAKUZHIYIL VEEDU, PAYYAMATTOM MURI,KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,KULATHOOR P.O., KADIKAVU, PIN-695583. (THE MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER SHEEJA K.I., KIDARAKUZHIYIL VEEDU, PAYYAMATTOM MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, KULATHOOR P.O., KADIKAVU.)

¶13

BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶16

-2-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Dated this the 2^nd day of June 2022)

¶19

Aggrieved by the order in M.C. No.86 of 2013 on the

¶20

files of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, the respondent/husband has filed this revision petition. The petitioners filed petition under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The first petitioner claimed Rs.6,000/- and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 claimed Rs.7,000/-

¶21

each from the respondent as monthly maintenance.

¶22

The case of the petitioners before the court below is

¶23

that they were driven out from the house of the respondent in January 2012 and from that period they are staying along

¶24

with the parents of the first petitioner and are maintained by them. The respondent is working as VEO in Kerala Government services getting a monthly salary of

¶25

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶26

-3-

¶27

Rs.25,000/- and also getting Rs.8,000/- per month from his landed properties. Thus, the counter petitioner is getting a total income of Rs.33,000/- per month.

¶28

This case was tried along with O.P. No.385 of 2013 and O.P.(G&W) No.825 of 2013. As per the impugned order, the Family Court allowed the case filed by the petitioners and monthly maintenance was allowed at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.5,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed by the respondent/husband.

¶29

The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the first respondent has left the revision petitioner without any reason, she is not entitled to

¶30

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶31

-4-

¶32

claim maintenance for living separately. The court below

¶33

ought to have dismissed the petition holding that the respondents are not entitled to claim maintenance as he was always ready to look after them. He also contended that the petitioner is meeting educational expense of the children and hence, ought not have directed the payment of maintenance. He has to maintain his aged mother and unmarried elder sister. He has to repay the loans availed by him. His take home salary is only Rs.31,000/- per month and hence, prayed for setting aside the order of maintenance.

¶34

The first respondent along with the minor children, claimed maintenance from the respondent, as the respondent has failed to maintain them from 15.2.2013

¶35

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶36

-5-

¶37

onwards. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶38

first respondent has left the house on 7.2.2012 with out any reason. Though she was suffering from mental illness at the time of desertion, she was not having any illness and there is no evidence before the court below to show that on the date of desertion, she was mentally ill and it was not a deliberate desertion and the Family court, without any evidence held that she has left the matrimonial home due to the mental illness though she is perfectly normal thereafter. RW4 was the Doctor who treated the first petitioner. The Doctor stated before the court that she was suffering from bipolar affective disorder (a mild disorder) and she was inpatient from 27.5.2011 t0 3.6.2011 in the hospital. She has a tendency to go out and suspicious about everybody.

¶39

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶40

-6-

¶41

The Doctor has prescribed medicines, which is antipsychiatric in nature. It was also submitted by the Doctor that subsequently she was given a higher dose of

¶42

medicines, since the medicines already given did not bring any fruitful result. If the medicine is stopped by the patient, there is a possibility of recurrence. The court below relying on the evidence of the Doctor, came to the conclusion that the allegation that the first petitioner deserted the respondent and left the matrimonial home without any reason is not correct and it was due to mental illness that she left home. Though there was no precise finding to the effect that on the particular date of desertion she was having illness, the attending circumstances and the evidence adduced along with the deposition of the Doctor,

¶43

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶44

-7-

¶45

it can be safely concluded that the first respondent had mental illness and there is a probability that she has left the matrimonial home due to her mental illness and there is no deliberate desertion on her part. Entering into a finding on this line, the court below was justified in granting maintenance to the petitioners.

¶46

The court below awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. When the court below has granted Rs.4,000/- to the first respondent wife, who is under treatment for mental illness also, the granting of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the minor children is slightly on the higher side. Taking into consideration of the cost of living and the attending

¶47

RPFC NO. 232 OF 2018

¶48

-8-

¶49

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded to minor respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be scaled down to Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶50

In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part and the maintenance amount awarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is re-fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition. As far as the maintenance awarded to the first respondent is concerned, the same remains not interfered.

¶51

¶52

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶53

dl/

Muhammad Shafi v. Sheeja K.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Shafi v. Sheeja K.I.

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

Nayana Vs Vishnu P. Naick

Jose@Renji Varghese Vs Anu Varghese

Prasanth v Vs Devika

Gopinathan Vs Raji @ Rajeswari

M.Ramla Vs a.C.Ashraf

Nagesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala