Dismissed

Muhammed Rashid v. Shabana

Kerala HC2 Aug 2023RPFC/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against Family Court order granting Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance to wife. Court rejected plea that wife left without reasons or married twice; found sufficient evidence for negligence. Maintained order and enforced arrears payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; revision petitioner directed to deposit 30% of arrears within 2 months with balance thereafter in installments.

Muhammed Rashid Vs Shabana — 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 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023

¶6

MC 178/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC:

¶8

MUHAMMED RASHID
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. AYISHABI, NELLIKKUNNAN HOUSE, C/O. PICHAN MADATHIL
SALEEM, WEST KODUR, PALLIPADY, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676504

¶9

BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN MC:

¶11

SHABANA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED, PALLIPURATH HOUSE, MOORKANAD AMOSM AND
DESOM, MOORKANAD POST, KULATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679338

¶12

BY ADVS.
SHAHIM BIN AZIZ
BIBIN BABU(K/842/2017)
T.RIYAS(K/548/2016)
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K(K/573/2016)
M.I.ANWAR SADATH(K/000535/2016)

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2023

¶17

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of

¶18

the Family Courts Act and the revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.178/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram.

¶19

The respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and the original petitioner in the above M.C.

¶20

Heard both sides in detail.

¶21

In this matter, the respondent herein, admittedly, the wife of the revision petitioner, claimed allowance of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) before the Family Court, on asserting that she did not have any means of maintenance and the revision petitioner is capable of maintaining her. According to the respondent herein, the revision petitioner had been earning Rs.35,000/- per month, being a driver.

¶22

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023 3

¶23

The revision petitioner filed objection, contending that the respondent herein has been doing job of tailoring and getting Rs.8,000/- per month and therefore, she does not deserve maintenance. Another contention raised was that, the respondent herein failed to join the company of the revision petitioner and neglected the revision petitioner. Therefore, the respondent herein is not entitled for maintenance and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

The Family Court recorded evidence in the M.C. along with O.P.No.540/2018. Thereafter, the Family Court granted Rs.5,000/- per month, as maintenance to the respondent herein (wife) from the date of the petition, i.e., 15.5.2018.

¶25

While assailing the order granting maintenance, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, since the respondent herein left the company of the revision petitioner without any justifiable reasons, she could not claim maintenance in view of the mandate under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶26

Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶27

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023 4

¶28

the respondent herein (wife) that the marriage between the parties was on 10.8.2017 and thereafter, neglecting the respondent herein, the revision petitioner married again and he has been residing along with the second wife and child born out of the said wedlock. It is also submitted that the revision petitioner already divorced the respondent herein.

¶29

In order to apply Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., there must be convincing evidence to show that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reasons after refusing to live with the husband. In fact, on perusal of the evidence, no such convincing evidence forthcoming. It is discernible from the order that, soon after the marriage, the relationship collapsed, which led to filing of criminal case, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is not bound to pay maintenance to the respondent herein (wife), found to be untenable and the same is repelled.

¶30

Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the specific case before the Family Court was that, the revision petitioner

¶31

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023 5

¶32

had been earning Rs.35,000/- per month, being a driver. During examination of the revision petitioner as RW1, he admitted that he was the owner of an Autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KL-10-AV-3347 and he had been doing the job of Autorickshaw driver. Later, during 4.5.2018, he transferred the same in the name of his brother-in-law, by name Sakkariya. The Family Court observed that the revision petitioner dishonestly transferred the Autorickshaw in the name of his brother-in-law to defeat the claims of the wife. Accordingly, the Family Court found that the revision petitioner is bound to maintain the wife and accordingly, Rs.5,000/- per month, was granted as maintenance. Coming to the quantum, Rs.5,000/per month granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable in view of the living index, prevailing. Therefore, the same is also reasonable.

¶33

In the result, this R.P.(F.C.) stands dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for 6 months’ time to clear the arrears of maintenance, as per the order. Acting on the request, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit 30% of the arrears, within a period of one month and clear the

¶34

RPFC NO. 76 OF 2023 6

¶35

remaining amount of 30% thereafter, within a period of one month and the remaining 40% thereafter, within a period of one month. If the revision petitioner fails to deposit any of the installments, as directed, the order as such, will be available for execution, deeming that there is no rider to execute the order.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶38

Muhammed Rashid v. Shabana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rashid v. Shabana

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 Shaji Vs Remsina Mol

Antony Jhony Vs State of Kerala

Shanmugharaj Vs Sub Inspector of Police