Allowed

Muhammed Navas C.K. v. Arshitha. C.

Kerala HC16 Aug 2023RPFC/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reduced maintenance granted to the wife under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, finding the Family Court's award of Rs.4,000 sufficient. The court also rejected the husband's mental illness plea and affirmed maintenance for minor children.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance to the wife reduced to Rs.3,000 per month; maintenance for minor children confirmed at Rs.3,000 each.

Muhammed Navas C.K. Vs Arshitha. C. — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

RPFC NO. 92 OF 2023

¶6

MC 146/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

MUHAMMED NAVAS C.K.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFA, AUTO DRIVER, RAMSEENA MANZIL, JUMA MASJID
ROAD, P.O.CHALAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670014

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

K.P.SREEKUMAR
P.M.SATHEESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1ARSHITHA. C.

¶13

AGED 30 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED NAVAS, NO JOB, CHENNYAN HOUSE, BALAN KINAR,
KATTAMPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011

¶14

2MUHAMMED AMAN (MINOR)
AGED 10 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED NAVAS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, GUARDIAN,
1ST RESPONDENT ARSHITHA.C.,CHENNYAN HOUSE, BALAN KINAR,
KATTAMPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011

¶15

3MUHAMMED SAIN (MINOR)
AGED 8 YEARS

¶16

S/O. MUHAMMED NAVAS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, GUARDIAN,
1ST RESPONDENT ARSHITHA.C., CHENNYAN HOUSE, BALAN KINAR,
KATTAMPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011

¶17

4 FATHIMA SANHA (MINOR) AGED 5 YEARS

¶18

D/O. MUHAMMED NAVAS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, GUARDIAN,
1ST RESPONDENT ARSHITHA.C., CHENNYAN HOUSE, BALAN KINAR,
KATTAMPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011

¶19

BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)(K/1364/2003)

¶20

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R PFC NO.92 OF 2023 2

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2023

¶24

This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging order in M.C.No.146/2020, dated 7.12.2022, on the files of the Family Court, Kannur, whereby, the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the 1^st petitioner (wife) and Rs.3,000/- each to petitioners No.2 to 4 (minor children). The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above M.C.

¶25

I shall refer the parties in this case as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ hereinafter, for easy reference.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the husband and wife.

¶27

I have perused the records available.

¶28

In this matter, respondents herein, admittedly the wife and minor children (respondent Nos.2 to 4), had approached the Family Court and claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the minor children (respondent Nos.2 to 4). According to the wife, she did not have any means of

¶29

R PFC NO.92 OF 2023 3

¶30

maintenance and the allegation raised by the wife before the Family Court was that, the husband purchased a new autorickshaw and doing the job of autorickshaw driver. Therefore, he could pay maintenance at the above rate.

¶31

The husband filed objection and admitted the status of the 1^st respondent herein as wife and the other respondents (respondent Nos.2 to 4), as the children, born out of the wedlock. According to him, the wife had been employed and had been getting Rs.20,000/- from her job. The husband also raised a contention that, he had been getting only Rs.5,000/- per month and he had to look after his aged parents residing along with him. Therefore, he could not pay maintenance, as claimed.

¶32

The Family Court considered the M.C. by examining the wife as PW1 and the husband as RW1. Thereafter, the Family Court found that the husband is capable of paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the minor children (respondent Nos.2 to 4).

¶33

According to the learned counsel for the husband, the amount granted by the Family Court is excessive and the husband, who has been suffering from mental illness, could not pay the

¶34

R PFC NO.92 OF 2023 4

¶35

amount. He has highlighted Ext.D1, to substantiate his mental illness.

¶36

In this matter, the husband himself offered as witness to prove his case and, he filed an affidavit in support of his contentions. He withstood cross-examination without any signs of mental illness and he had given evidence that he owns an autorickshaw and doing the job of an autorickshaw driver. He also clearly stated the respective ages of the minor children, with certainty. Ext.D1 is the document placed to substantiate his mental illness. The same appears to be one, issued by Dr.Sivaramakrishnan, Consultant Psychiatrist. In the said document, the complaint raised by the husband before the Doctor or the diagnosis thereof, could not be seen. It is noted that three tablets were prescribed, without any finding as to any infirmities. The Doctor also was not examined. Therefore, the mental infirmity, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the husband, cannot be considered for any reason and as such, this contention is found to be meritless, as rightly found by the Family Court.

¶37

In this matter, the Family Court found that the minimum rate for autorickshaw is Rs.30/- and the husband had been getting

¶38

R PFC NO.92 OF 2023 5

¶39

Rs.500/- per day. In fact, the Family Court granted Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the minor children (respondent Nos.2 to 4).

¶40

Having considered the fact that the husband is a person, doing the job of an autorickshaw driver, I am inclined to reduce the maintenance granted to the wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, while confirming grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each per month to the minor children (respondent Nos.2 to 4).

¶41

This revision petition stands allowed, as indicated above.

¶42

Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Muhammed Navas C.K. v. Arshitha. C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Navas C.K. v. Arshitha. C.

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

Sakthidharan. G Vs Sree Gokukam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Pauly Vs State of Kerala

Joseph @ Jomon Vs State of Kerala

Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs M/S.Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd.

Seena R.Sethu Vs Peter Thomas

A.M.Anantha Raj Vs M.Muhammed Nazeem