Sameera, v. Rafeeq
Case brief
What is this about?
Husband and wife appealed against a Family Court order directing husband to return gold ornaments, money, and pay maintenance. High Court upheld trial court's findings of facts and dismissed appeals as meritless.
What did the court decide?
Appeals against the Family Court order directing return of gold, money, and maintenance were dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/07/2019 IN OP 135/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAFEEQ
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KALANGADAN MUHAMMED HAJI,
CHENAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU POST, POTHUVETTIPPARA, KONDOTTY,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the return of gold ornaments and money are correct.
Whether the interest awarded on the returned gold and money is adequate.
Whether the maintenance awarded to the wife and children is reasonable.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
Rafeeq
- appellant
Samuera
- appellant
Muhammad Shabeel
- appellant
Fathima Rishva
- appellant
Rishona
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court