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) 53632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHAFEEKH NAZARUDEEN – Appellant
Versus
SIMLA S – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 801 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.A.VINOD, SHRI.SUHAIL M.

Court emphasizes the reasonable provision of maintenance amid the father's obligations to multiple children.

Headnote:The petitioner's challenge against the Family Court's order granting maintenance is refuted, citing inability to provide evidence of income. The court finds the awarded amount reasonable considering the petitioner's circumstances and responsibilities towards other children. Issues include maintenance sufficiency and the petitioner's financial capability. Ultimately, the original petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges maintenance amount. (Para 1)
2. court finds maintenance reasonable considering circumstances. (Para 2)
3. original petition is dismissed. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is working in Dubai, is the affluent father of a 5 year old child. He has come before this Court challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Punalur granting a reasonable amount of maintenance to his daughter.

2. The petitioner is admittedly the father of the 2nd respondent, who was born to the 1st respondent, his 2nd wife. His first marriage is still subsisting. It is submitted that three children were born out of the first marriage of the petitioner and all three children are residing with him. His case is that he cannot provide maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month as ordered by the Family Court to the 2nd respondent, who is not residing with him. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working abroad. Even though he has taken up a contention that he is earning only Rs.60,000/- per month, no documentary evidence had been produced to substantiate the same. At any rate, he is maintaining all the three children born out of his first wife. He cannot contend that the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded to the 2nd respondent, who was born to his second wife, is on the higher side.

3. Considering the requirement of the 2nd respondent and the ability and income of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable, if not inadequate. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

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