Dismissed

Muhammed Arif v. Marjan

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023RPFC/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court's maintenance order. The court held that social media printouts are insufficient to prove employment and rejected the claim that the petitioner's accident prevented him from work, noting his presence in court during wife's examination. Volume reduced: dismissed.

What did the court decide?

RPFC dismissed with liberty to approach Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. with valid proof of employment and inability to work.

Muhammed Arif Vs Marjan — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 27 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 193/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶7

MALAPPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/(RESPONDENT)

¶9

MUHAMMED ARIF
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. HANEEFA, PALOLI VEEDU,
PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, VATTALLUR,
P.O PADAPPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679338

¶10

BY ADVS.
VIMAL VIJAY
K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
VANDANA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶12

1MARJAN
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O MUHAMMADALI, MELETHIL VEEDU, KURUVA AMSOM,
VATTALLUR DESOM P.O, CHERUKULAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676507

¶13

2HARSHA MEHRIN (MINOR)
AGED 3 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER MARJAN, MELETHIL VEEDU, KURUVA
AMSOM, VATTALLUR DESOM P.O, CHERUKULAMBU,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
 PIN - 676507
BY ADVS.
 C.DINESH
RESHMI VIJU(K/2656/2021)

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

RPFC No.27 of 2023

ORDER

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2023

¶19

The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.193 of 2021 filed by his wife and child, the respondents herein. The case was filed seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each.

¶20

The revision petitioner is a carpenter by profession and the 1^st respondent/wife was pursuing her studies and the 2^nd respondent/child was aged 1 ½ years. The Family Court accepted the case put forth by the wife that she is unemployed and has no means to sustain herself and the child. The contention that the petitioner has sufficient means and refused to maintain the wife and child was also accepted. On consideration of all relevant factors, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to

¶21

his wife at the rate of Rs.6000/- and to the child at the rate of Rs.2250/-.

¶22

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶23

¶24

RPFC No.27 of 2023

¶25

contended that the Family Court committed a patent illegality in having refused to accept the evidence regarding the wife’s employment. In this regard, reference is made to Exts.B12 to B18 series print outs of advertisements of a training academy containing the photographs of the 1^st respondent and a caption congratulating her on securing employment before completing the course at the academy. It is submitted that even though the 1^st respondent filed a petition, seeking to examine the Principal of the training academy to prove that she is not employed, the petition was not pursued. According to the counsel, the above conduct lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that the first respondent is employed. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner met with an accident, which has made it impossible for him to do carpentry work. It is hence contended that the quantum of maintenance ought to be reduced.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner were

¶27

¶28

RPFC No.27 of 2023

¶29

considered by the Family Court. In this regard, attention is drawn to paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, wherein it is observed that a photograph in an advertisement is not sufficient to hold that the 1^st respondent is employed.

¶30

I find the above reasoning to be well founded. The print outs taken from a social media site cannot be the basis for finding a person to be employed. Merely because the wife made an application for examining the Principal of the training institute will also not give any credibility to the printouts. The contention that the petitioner is not able to do carpentry work by reason of his accident was rightly rejected by finding that the petitioner had been present in court when the 1^st respondent was examined and he had also participated in the counselling and mediation sessions. Being so, the challenge against the quantum of maintenance also fails. At best, the petitioner can be granted the liberty to approach the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. if he has valid proof regarding first respondent’s employment and his inability to work.

¶31

RPFC No.27 of 2023

¶32

¶33

The RPFC is accordingly dismissed, with the above

observation.

Sd/-

smm

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

Muhammed Arif v. Marjan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Arif v. Marjan

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

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.C.Ashokan

Santhoshkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Mr. X Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Drugs Inspector

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala