Dr. Mansoor Mohammed Kassim Vs Soniya Latheefa

¶1

2025:KER:27507

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶9

ORDER DATED 19.02.2025 IN IA 4/2023 IN

¶10

OP NO.2556/2023, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶12

DR. MANSOOR MOHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMMED KASSIM, THOPPIL VEEDU,
COLLEGE JUNCTION, VAALICODE, NEDUMANGADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SUNITHA.N.,
D/O. MOHAMMED KASSIM, AGED 55 YEARS,
THOPPIL VEEDU, COLLEGE JUNCTION, VAALICODE,
NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695541.

¶13

BY ADVS. S.S.ARAVIND
TINU ABRAHAM

¶14

RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶15

1 SONIYA LATHEEFA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. SAIFUDHEEN, RESIDING AT 8, TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR, KUNNATHU LANE, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695002.

¶16

2 DIYA, AGED 15 YEARS, D/O. SONIYA LATHEEFA, RESIDING AT 8, TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR,

¶17

2025:KER:27507

¶18

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶19

-2-

¶20

KUNNATHU LANE, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695002.
REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER,
PIN – 695002.
3SAMAR, D/O. SONIYA LATHEEFA, RESIDING AT 8,
TC 20/11 90(1), MELARANOOR, KUNNATHU LANE,
KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695002.
REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER,
PIN – 695002.

¶21

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶22

2025:KER:27507

¶23

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶24

-3- JUDGMENT

¶25

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶26

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of
the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram,

¶27

asserting that the direction therein - that he
should pay Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd respondent and
Rs.25,000/- to the 3rd respondent (whom he
concedes to be his children) - is illegal and
unlawful because, he is already paying

¶28

Rs.40,000/- to both of them voluntarily.

¶29

2. Sri.S.S.Aravind – learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner, argued that Ext.P8 order is
unnecessary, when his client is paying the
maintenance without default; and that such a

¶31

course, without conducting an inquiry whether he

¶32

had committed any default, is untenable. He,
however, conceded, to a pointed question from

¶33

2025:KER:27507

¶34

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶35

-4-

¶36

this Court, that his client has only been asked

¶37

to pay Rs.5,000/- in addition to what he is
voluntarily paying; but argued that this was
unnecessary because the sum he was honouring was
already sufficient.

¶38

3. We are afraid that we cannot find
favour with the challenge to Ext.P8 at this
stage because, the petitioner himself admits

¶39

that he is paying Rs.40,000/- per month towards
the maintenance of the children. He has now been
asked to pay only Rs.45,000/-; and, as indicated
above, this amounts only to Rs.5,000/- per month
extra, and that too from the date of petition.

¶40

4. When the petitioner does not have a
case that he is not earning enough and that he

¶41

is paying Rs.40,000/- per month for the
maintenance of the children, we fail to
understand why he should have approached this

¶42

2025:KER:27507

¶43

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶44

-5-

¶45

Court in this manner. We gather he has done so
since he fears that he will now be bound by a
court order, rather than by a voluntary action
of making payment of maintenance. However, this
is inevitable because the Court was bound to
consider the application of the respondents,
wherein, the maintenance claim was Rs.2,50,000/-
on the assertion that the petitioner is earning

¶46

Rs.10,00,000/- per month. The Court was
certainlyobligatedtoconsidersuch
application, which it has done, in our view,
correctly; and hence the argument of the
petitioner that the impugned order could have
been issued only after an enquiry as to if the
petitioner was making payment voluntarily could
be of no consequence.

¶47

In the afore circumstances, we dismiss
thisOriginal Petition,confirming Ext.P8;

¶48

2025:KER:27507

¶49

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶50

-6-

¶51

however, clarifying that the amount ordered to
be paid under it shall be after deduction of the
amounts, if any, he has already paid in the
past.

¶52

Needless to say, our observations herein
are only confined to our examination of the
validity of the impugned order and shall not
trammel or fetter the learned Family Court when
it proceeds to decide the matter on its merits
in due course.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

M.B.SNEHALATHA

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

akv

¶60

2025:KER:27507

¶61

OP (FC) NO. 183 OF 2025

¶62

-7-

¶63

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 183/2025

¶64

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶65

`EXHIBIT -P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.2556/2023 FILED BY` `THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE FAMILY COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 6-12-2023`
`EXHIBIT-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER IN O.P NO.2556/2023 BEFORE` `FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1-` `11-2024`
`EXHIBIT -P3`	`TRUE COPY OF ASSET AND LIABILITIES` `STATEMENT DATED 17-1-2025`
`EXHIBIT -P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATION` `DATED 27/05/2017`
`EXHIBIT-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATION` `DATED 10/08/2018`
`EXHIBIT-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.4 OF 2023 IN OP` `NO.2556/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS` `BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 7-12-2023`
`EXHIBIT-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER IN IA NO.4 OF 2023IN OP` `NO.2556/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`EXHIBIT-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.4 OF 2023` `IN O.P. 2556/2023 PASSED BY THE FAMILY` `COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19-2-2025`

Dr. Mansoor Mohammed Kassim v. Soniya Latheefa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mansoor Mohammed Kassim v. Soniya Latheefa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimala Vs Sasikumar

Somasundaran Vs Sunitha K.P

Ramsi N Vs Jihas

Revathy P. C. Vs Arun S

Mrijesh Vs Aswathy

Saheer Rahman, Vs Nubla .v.