SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 41579

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.RENUKA VENU, SMT.S.SEETHA
For the Respondents: SRI.P.S.BINU, SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

Court upheld maintenance order, emphasizing consideration of evidence regarding the parties' financial circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance - Family Court - The Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to the wife and child, respectively; Revision petitions challenging the orders demonstrate that both parties were heard, with evidence considered, affirming ability to pay maintenance (Paras 1, 2, 3).

(B) Change of Circumstances - The court noted if circumstances change, either party may apply for modification of maintenance under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. (Para 3).

Facts of the case:
The Family Court granted maintenance to petitioners who were unable to maintain themselves. The husband claimed he had no job, but the evidence supported the court’s decision on maintenance awarded.

Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the appeals.

Issues: The main issue addressed was the adequacy of the granted maintenance amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintaining that both the condition of the petitioners and ability of the respondent to pay were duly considered, the court upheld the Family Court’s decision.

Result: Revision petitions are disposed of without interference.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top