Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Dr. Kausar Edappagath, J
Vappinu – Appellant
Versus
Fathima – Respondent
The specific name or designation of the family court was not provided in the information you shared. The document refers to the "lower family court," but does not specify its exact name or jurisdiction.
ORDER
These revision petitions are connected and are disposed of by a common order.
2. R.P (F.C) No.398 of 2018 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, in M.C.No.89 of 2016. R.P (F.C) No.366 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, in M.C.No.203 of 2023.
3. M.C. No.89 of 2016 has been filed by the wife, Fathima, against her husband, Muhammed Vappinu. The Family Court, after trial, granted maintenance to the wife @Rs. 5,000/- per month as per the order dated 03.04.2018. The said order is under challenge in R.P. (F.C.) No. 398 of 2018.
4. M.C. No.203 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent in M.C.No.89 of 2016, Muhammed Vappinu, against his son, Vasif Muhammed. The Family Court dismissed the case as per the order dated 29.05.2024. The said order is under challenge in R.P. (F.C.) No. 366 of 2024.
5. I have heard Sri.Jagadeesh K, the learned counsel for the husband, Sri.K.N.Abhilash, the learned counsel for the wife and the son.
6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in M.C.No.89 of 2016 took place on 20.04.1983. Three children were born
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
