Dismissed¶35

Shahul Hameed Shamsudeen v. Sibi

Maintenance of minor children – Revision Petition (Family Court)

Kerala HC26 Mar 2025RPFC/31/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RPFC No.31 of 2015, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, decided 26.03.2025 (2025:KER:25983). Revision petition by Shahul Hameed Shamsudeen against maintenance order dated 27.04.2013 in M.C. No.150/2010 of Family Court, Kottarakkara dismissed. Monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each upheld for minor children Rihana (10) and Rizana (7); mother Sibi denied maintenance as able to maintain herself; father found running furniture business with income; paternity undisputed. No statutory provisions or precedent cases cited in the order.

What did the court decide?

None to the revision petitioner; the impugned maintenance order in favour of respondents 2 and 3 stands. ¶35

Shahul Hameed Shamsudeen Vs Sibi — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:KER:25983

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

RPFC NO. 31 OF 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2013 IN MC NO.150 OF 2010 OF

¶8

FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SHAHUL HAMEED SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KARIMBALOOR HOUSE,
PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
PIN-689695.

¶11

BY ADV.
SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1SIBI
AGED 29 YEARS
RAZANA MANZIL(SINI MANGALAM),
PERUMANUR MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691532.

¶14

2 RIHANA (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS, SINI MANGALATHU VEEDU,THADIKKADU MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691532, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶15

3 RIZANA MINOR (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS

¶16

2025:KER:25983

¶17

RPFC NO.31 OF 2015

¶18

¶19

SINI MANGALATHU VEEDU, THADIKKADU MURI,
ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,PIN-691532
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶20

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶21

BY ADV.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶22

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

RPFC NO.31 OF 2015

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:25983

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in M. C. No.150/2010 dated 27.04.2013.

¶28

The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial found that the 1^st respondent is not entitled for maintenance as she is able to maintain herself. However, the Family Court granted a monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents as per the impugned order. The petitioner challenges the impugned order granting maintenance to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶29

I have heard both sides.

¶30

The paternity is not in dispute. The petitioner

¶31

being the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents is legally and

¶32

RPFC NO.31 OF 2015
4

¶33

2025:KER:25983

¶34

morally bound to maintain them. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is conducting a furniture business and earns income. Considering the requirements of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each granted by the Family Court to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶35

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶38

Shahul Hameed Shamsudeen v. Sibi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hameed Shamsudeen v. Sibi

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

Sureshkumar Vs Devananda

Koshy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Vs Sasidharan

John Johnson Vs Ugenett Mary

Girija Vs Anilkumar

Shaji Varghese Vs Dhamsheena