Dismissed

Muhammed Shaji v. Remsina Mol

Kerala HC2 Aug 2023OP(Crl.)/69/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined a writ petition filed to set aside a non-bailable warrant issued for enforcement of maintenance arrears. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, noting that the Family Court order covered arrears up to the date of the wife's remarriage. The petition was dismissed, but execution of the warrant was deferred for one month to allow the petitioner to deposit the

What did the court decide?

Execution of the non-bailable warrant deferred for one month, subject to deposit of arrears.

Muhammed Shaji Vs Remsina Mol — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

OP(CRL.) NO. 69 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED SHAJI S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, CHUNKATH HOUSE, KUMARENELLOOR, PADINHARANGADI, ANGADI.P.O, PALAKKAD-679552. BY ADV RENNY AUGUSTINE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REMSINA MOL D/O ABDULLAKUTTY, ABOUT 40 YEARS, MANKULANGARA HOUSE, AYANKALAM.P.O, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM, MARAVANCHERY, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679573. 2 RYIDU MUHAMMED(MINOR), S/O MUHAMMED SHAJI, AGED 11 YEARS MANKULANGARA HOUSE,AYANKALAM.P.O, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM, MARAVANCHERY, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679573 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN REMSINA MOL, D/O ABDULLAKKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MANKULANGARA HOUSE, AYANKALAM.P.O, THRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM, MARAVANCHERY, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679573. BY ADV SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶10

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

O.P.(Crl)No. 69 of 2021

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2023

¶15

This original petition (criminal) has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:

¶16

“1) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P2 and set aside the Exhibit P2 and recall order of Arrest Warrant issued in CMP (Ex) Nos. 357/2013, 716/2013 and 11/2019 in M.C. No. 573/2009 on the file of family court, Tirur.

¶17

2) To issue such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper consider the nature and circumstances of this case.”

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though order in MC No.573/2009 whereby the Family Court allowed Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child, the petitioner herein challenged the same before this Court by filing Mat. Appeal No.660/2010. As per order dated

¶20

O.P.(Crl)No. 69 of 2021

¶21

¶22

08.06.2018 this Court also confirmed the order passed by the Family Court. It was thereafter, the respondent herein filed CMP (Ex) Nos. 357/2013, 716/2013 and 11/2019 claiming amounts for the period between 17.05.2011 to 16.11.2012, 17.11.2012 to 16.12.2013 and 17.12.2013 to 03.05.2015. As per Ext.P2 order, the Family Court ordered to pay the amount and on notice of failure to do so, non bailable warrant was ordered against the petitioner herein.

¶23

4 . It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Ext.P3 copy of receipt dated 15.03.2021, Rs.25,000/- was deposited and the remaining amount covered by Ext.P2 order is in arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that now the wife remarried as admitted in CMP as on 03.05.2015. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from 03.05.2015.

¶24

5 . On reading the averments in the CMP admitting marriage of the respondent on 03.05.2015, the learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the arrears covered in CMP which led to Ext.P2 order is the amount upto 03.05.2015 and not thereafter.

¶25

6 . On perusal of Ext.P2 order no tenable contentions

¶26

O.P.(Crl)No. 69 of 2021

¶27

¶28

to disallow the execution of the order in MC which was confirmed by this Court has been raised and for the said reasons, the learned Family Court negatived the objection and ordered payment of the amount and subsequently issued non bailable warrant. Thus it appears that none of the prayers in this petition is liable to be allowed and the petition is found to be absolutely meritless.

¶29

Hence, this original petition stands dismissed. However, acting on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to clear the arrears within a period of one month and for the said period execution of the warrant stands deferred. If the amount is not deposited within a period of one month as directed, the warrant shall be executed to ensure enforcement of the order in the MC, without fail.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶32

¶33

O.P.(Crl)No. 69 of 2021

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 69/2021

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN O.P. (CRL)NO.143/2019 AND O.P.(CRL)NOS.144/2019 DATED 28.03.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR IN CMP(EX)NO.357/2013, 716/2013 AND 11/2019 IN M.C.NO.573/2019 DATED 8.1.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.327 DATED 15-03-2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Muhammed Shaji v. Remsina Mol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shaji v. Remsina Mol

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

Saleena Vs Nisar M.P

Shaiby Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Rafi Vs Hajira

Muhammed Rashid Vs Shabana

Antony Jhony Vs State of Kerala

Shanmugharaj Vs Sub Inspector of Police