Allowed

Muhammed Musthafa, v. Fasla

Kerala HC11 Jul 2023RPFC/79/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a revision petition, setting aside a Family Court order fixing maintenance liability. The impugned order was struck down solely due to the absence of reasons regarding liability and quantum, despite the petitioner's contestation on medical grounds and prior high court directions for reasoned orders. Directions were issued for the Family Court to reconsider the matt

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in M.C.No.410 of 2016 is set aside, subject to depositing Rs.25,000/-; the Family Court must reconsider and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Muhammed Musthafa, Vs Fasla — 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

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 79 OF 2020

¶6

MC 410/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED, OTTAKATH THOKKATT HOUSE, P.O. MUDIKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 FASLA, AGED 27 YEARS D/O. MOOSA, CHAKKIPPARAMBAN HOUSE, NELLIKUTH, MUKKAM, PAYYANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676122. 2 MUFLIH, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER FASLA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. MOOSA, CHAKKIPPARAMBAN HOUSE, NELLIKUTH, MUKKAM, PAYYANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676122. 3 MUSLIH, AGED 5 1/2 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER FASLA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. MOOSA, CHAKKIPPARAMBAN HOUSE, NELLIKUTH, MUKKAM, PAYYANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676122. BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED

¶12

THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

R.P.(F.C.) No.79 of 2020

¶14

-2-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2023

¶17

The challenge in this revision petition is against an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents, his wife and children, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and 2,500/- each from 25.11.2016. I am constrained to set aside the order for absence of reasons for

¶18

fixing the liability and the quantum. The petitioner having contested the case on various grounds including his medical condition, it is unfortunate to see such cryptic orders being passed, in spite of the directions issued by this Court, alerting the Family Courts about the necessity of passing reasoned orders. Orders like the one under condition militates against the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.PC, which is to provide solace to the destitute wife and children.

¶19

In spite of the infirmity in the order, Section 125 of Cr.P.C being a social welfare

¶20

R.P.(F.C.) No.79 of 2020

¶21

measure and to minimise the prejudice caused to the respondents, the petitioner is bound to pay some amount towards the maintenance allowance.

¶22

allowed and the following directions issued;

¶23

(i) The impugned order in M.C.No.410 of 2016 of the Family Court, Malappuram is set

¶24

aside, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.25,000/- before the Family Court within one month.

¶25

being produced along with certified copy of this order, the Family Court shall reconsider MC No.410 of 2016 and pass a reasoned order thereon within three months, after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties.

¶26

petitioner shall forthwith be released to the respondents.

¶27

Scl/

Muhammed Musthafa, v. Fasla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Musthafa, v. Fasla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Shaji a. Baby

Tony Joseph Vs Dimpil V.M

Mubarak Vs State of Kerala

Vanila P.P. Vs Shyju v.

Dr. Vijayprakash Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Subhash Das Vs State of Kerala