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) 65138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHENEY P – Appellant
Versus
JAYAPRAKASH E.P – Respondent
RPFC 16/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946 RPFC NO. 501 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023 IN MC NO.89 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

JAYAPRAKASH E.P, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, AMRITHA SAGAR, THENIHPPALAM P.O., KADAIKKATTUPARA ROAD, MUDRA CORNER, MALAPURAM DISTRICT 676 121. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ATILYA SAGAR, SIVAGIRI NAGAR, KULAI HASABETTUE P.O., DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA, PIN - 575019 BY ADV JAYAPRAKASH E.P(Party-In-Person)

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:

1 SHENEY P, AGED 47 YEARS D/O. ACHUTAN NAIR, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O., KADAMPANADVILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 552 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 69/785, CHAITHANYA GARDENS, OPPOSITE ARA 25A HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL, MANARCUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

2 AMRITHA JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 24 YEARS D/O JAYAPRAKASH E.P ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O., KADAMPANADVILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 552 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 69/785, CHAITHANYA GARDENS, OPPOSITE ARA 25A HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL, MANARCUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009 BY ADVS.JACOB P. ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX(K/1-C/2002)

MANU SANKAR P.(K/000823/2018)

AMAL AMIR ALI(K/000773/2019)

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH RPFC.16/2024, THE COURT ON

27.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946 RPFC NO. 16 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023 IN MC NO.89 OF

2018 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

1 SHENEY P AGED 45 YEARS W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552

2 AMRITHA JAYAPRAKASH AGED 25 YEARS D/O. JAYAPRAKASH, ANJALI HOUSE, THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552 BY ADVS.JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P.

AMAL AMIR ALI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

JAYAPRAKASH E.P, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, AMRITHSAGAR, THENIPALAM P.O., KADAIKKATTUPARA, ROAD MUDRA CORNER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676121. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ATILYA SAGAR, SIVAGIRI NAGAR, KULAI HOSABETTU P.O., DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -

KARNATAKA, PIN - 575019 BY ADV JAYAPRAKASH E.P(Party-In-Person)

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2024, ALONG WITH RPFC.501/2023, THE COURT ON

27.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R.”

O R D E R

Both these Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta in M.C.

No.89/2018 dated 25/10/2023.

2. The 1st petitioner in the maintenance case before the Family Court is the legally wedded wife (hereinafter, wife) of the respondent therein (hereinafter, husband). Two children were born out of their wedlock. The 2nd petitioner therein is the elder daughter. The wife and husband have been at loggerheads for many years. They are living separately. There are a series of litigations between them. The elder daughter is living with the wife, while the younger daughter is living with the husband. The wife and the elder daughter filed a maintenance case against the husband, claiming maintenance @ `45,000/- each per month. They alleged that they have no job or source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. They further alleged that the husband is working in the Merchant Navy and earns `9,00,000/- per month. The husband resisted the maintenance case. He filed a counterstatement. He raised a specific contention that the wife is working as a clerk in Matsyafed and is able to maintain herself. He further contended that the elder daughter has attained majority and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance invoking Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

3. The parties went on trial. On

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