IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA – Appellant
Versus
RASMILA P.P – Respondent
RPFC NO. 525 OF 2017 | RP (FC) NO. 281 OF 2018 | MC NO.275 OF 2016
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family court granted maintenance orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent argues inability to pay maintenance. (Para 2) |
| 3. court found no reason to interfere with family court's order. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
These revisions are filed against the order dated
31.07.2017 in MC No. 275/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- & Rs.4,000/- to the wife and child. The wife and child filed RP (FC) No. 281/2018 challenging the quantum of maintenance. The husband filed RP (FC) No. 525/2017 against the order granting maintenance. Therefore, these revisions are disposed of by a common order (hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Family Court).
2. Before the Family Court, the petitioners and respondents were examined as PW1 and RW1. Two exhibits were also marked on the side of the respondent. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Family Court found that the petitioners are entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively. The Family Court found that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent is able to pay maintenance to the petitioners. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no job as on today and Annexure-D2 is produced. But the same is considered by the Family Court and thereafter, passed the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that Ext.D1 is also produced to show that the respondents is paying maintenance to the petitioners. That is also considered by the Family Court and thereafter, the impugned order is passed. The Family Court considered the entire aspects and subsequently allowed the petition. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The counsel for the petitioners in RP (FC) No. 281/2018 submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded is too low. But the claim petition was filed in the year 2016. The Family Court decided the matter based on the application filed in the year 2016. If there is any change of circumstances, both the petitioners and the respondent can file appropriate application before the Family Court under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C.
With the above observation, these revision petitions are disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.