Kerala High Court
Muneeba Shamsudeen vs Muhammed Safeek on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
1
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1552 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 33 YEARS,D/O SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD,
KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O A.K.SALIM,
RESIDING AT 1/121 C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2
2025:KER:43120
PONJASSERI P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT APPEAL NOS.519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO. 54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS. 1327/2019, 962/2018, THE
COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
3
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 962 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2018 IN MC NO.4 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A,CHIRAKUZHUY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY
JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN - 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.A.K.SALIM,
PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
4
2025:KER:43120
PONJASSERI P.O, - 683547.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
5
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1362 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 33 YEARS,D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A,
CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION,
DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. A.K. SALIM,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
6
2025:KER:43120
RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERI P.O, PERUMBAVUR-683547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
7
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.496 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS,D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A,CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,KARUKAPPALLY
JUNCTION,DESABHIMAN ROAD,KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.A.K.SALIM,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE,PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERI.P.O,PERUMBAVUR.PIN-683547
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
8
2025:KER:43120
2 A.I.SALIM,
AGED 66 YEARS,S/O.A.A,KOCHUNNI,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELANJIKAYIL HOUSE,
PATTIPPARA,PONJASSERI.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
3 ASMA SALIM,
AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.A.K.SALIM,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELANJIKAYIL HOUSE,
PATTIPPARA,PONJASSERI.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
9
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.496 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR, PIN - 683 547.
2 A.K.SALIM,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.A.A.KOZHUNNI, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
3 ASMA SALIM,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
10
2025:KER:43120
ELENJIKKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN,
AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A,
CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION,
DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN - 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
11
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1552 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY.P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER A.K.SALIM RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN ALI, 37/2790A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
12
2025:KER:43120
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
COCHIN-17
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
13
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1362 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. A.K. SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O. PERUMBAVUR,
PIN 683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER A.K. SALIM RESIDING AT 1/121 C, ELENJIKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O. PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
14
2025:KER:43120
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALLOR,
COCHIN 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
15
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RPFC NO. 54 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN MC NO.113 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. A.K.SALIM, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR, NOW WORKING AT M/S. EARNST AND YOUNG,
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, CONSULTANTS, 9TH FLOOR ABAD
NUCLEUS MALL, MARADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 304,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL HOSUE,
PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
16
2025:KER:43120
D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 017
2 FATHIMA ZAHARA
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED SAFEED, 37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND LEGAL AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
17
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1327 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2018 IN MC NO.4 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(E&O),ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SHEFEEQ
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O SALIM,1/121C,ELENJIKKAL
HOUSE,PATTIPARA,POONJASSERY P.O.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM
2 MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 29 YEARS
D/O SHAMSUDEEN ALI,37/2790A,CHIRAKKUZHI
HOUSE,KARUKAPPILLY JUNCTION,DESHABHIMANI ROAD,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
18
2025:KER:43120
KALOOR, COCHIN-17
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
19
2025:KER:43120
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019,519/2019,520/2019,565/2019,
850/2019, 851/2019, Crl.R.P.Nos.962/2018, 1327/2019 &
R.P.(FC)No.54/2020
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19thday of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
All the above proceedings are essentially between the husband and the wife. The wife filed O.P.No.496/2013 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, claiming recovery of 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.30,00,000/-, the marriage expenses and the cost of a car entrusted to the husband at the time of marriage. O.P.No.1362/2013 was filed by the husband claiming the custody of their child, and O.P.No.1552/2013 was filed by the wife for declaration of her guardianship and custody of the child. The wife further filed M.C.No.113/2013 claiming maintenance @ Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 20 2025:KER:43120 Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for her and daughter respectively. The Family Court ordered a joint trial of all the three original petitions and separately tried the maintenance case. After hearing all the cases together, the court disposed of the matters through a common judgment, which is impugned in these appeals by both sides.
2. As per the common judgment, the Family Court permitted the wife to realise Rs.65 lakhs together with interest @ 6% by charging the said amount on the property attached by the court, which belongs to the husband and his relatives. The court further appointed the father as the legal guardian of the minor and the mother as the permanent custodian, besides permitting the father to have the custody of the child when he is in the native place. The court also awarded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the child.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 21 2025:KER:43120
3. She filed another petition before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, claiming Rs.75.75 lakhs under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The court passed an order allowing her to recover Rs.36.60 lakhs. The husband and wife challenged the said order by preferring the above Criminal Revision Petitions.
4. As all the above matters are essentially between the same parties and there are common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of together.
5. We have heard Sri.P.K.Ibrahim and Sri.Babu Karukapadath, the learned counsel appearing on both sides. O.P.No.496/2013
6. As the main dispute in this matter revolves around the claim for the return of gold ornaments and Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 22 2025:KER:43120 money, let us first consider the case advanced by both sides in respect of the same. For the sake of convenience, the wife would be referred to hereinafter as the petitioner and the husband as the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 6.6.2010 at a five-star hotel in Ernakulam. The engagement function was also conducted in a similar fashion. It is contended by the petitioner that her father spent Rs.13,30,000/- towards the expenses of the engagement and marriage function, and as per the religious customs prevailing in their community, such expenses are to be borne by the husband. The father of the petitioner, and the respondent, are Chartered Accountants. The petitioner's father, brothers, and uncles are well settled abroad. At the time of her marriage, she was adorned with 276 sovereign gold ornaments. Before their marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent. A new Honda City car was also given to him at Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 23 2025:KER:43120 the time of the marriage. On the next day of the marriage, when the spouses reached the matrimonial home, the petitioner handed over 261 sovereign gold ornaments to the mother of the respondent for safekeeping, as instructed by the respondent and his parents. However, the respondent and his parents later sold the gold ornaments without her consent or knowledge, and used the amount to complete the construction of their new house and also to purchase a shopping complex. Similarly, the respondent sold the car to a third person and misappropriated its price, she alleges.
7. The petitioner further stated that in July 2010, her father arranged a job for the respondent in Kuwait, and both of them left for Kuwait and resided there together with her parents. Meanwhile, the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on 26.03.2011. The respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally, and he Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 24 2025:KER:43120 further neglected the basic needs of the petitioner and their daughter. Later, he married another woman, it is alleged.
8. The respondent and his parents denied the above allegations. According to them, the gold ornaments were retained by the petitioner after the marriage and no amount was given to the respondent at the time of marriage. The Honda City car was sold by the petitioner and her father, and they received the entire sale price. The respondent and his parents never demanded or received any gold or money from the petitioner or her family. It was the petitioner who deserted and abandoned the respondent without any reason. At the behest of the petitioner's father, who is a highly influential person, the respondent and his parents were subjected to harassment by the police, it is contended. Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 25 2025:KER:43120
9. After adverting to Exts.A1 to A25, B1 to B7, the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1 and RW2, the Family Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that she is entitled to recover 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent. Though the court found that the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.10 lakhs, the actual value of the car and the half share of the engagement and marriage expenses, the court passed a decree for realisation of Rs.65 lakhs together with 6% interest per annum as a consolidated amount, by relying on Ext.A20, a compromise agreement entered into between the uncle of the petitioner and the father of the respondent.
10. Let us first consider whether the petitioner was able to prove that she possessed 276 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. Though the respondent admits that the petitioner and her family are very well-placed and affluent enough to purchase such Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 26 2025:KER:43120 quantity of gold ornaments, he disputed this aspect. Exts.A3 to A13 cash memos produced by the petitioner show that she had purchased 235 sovereign gold ornaments. Ext.A2 marriage album also shows that the petitioner was adorned with a substantial quantity of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. According to the petitioner, she purchased 250 sovereigns of gold ornaments and received the remaining 26 sovereigns as gifts. It is customary for close relatives to give some gold ornaments to the bride as gift at the time of marriage. Thus, we are of the view that it is only reasonable to infer that the petitioner possessed nearly 275 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage.
11. The next point for determination is whether the petitioner succeeded in proving that she entrusted 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the mother of the respondent. When the petitioner was examined before the Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 27 2025:KER:43120 court as PW1, she asserted this fact. However, during cross-examination, she stated that, after the marriage, she returned to her father's house and went to the matrimonial home only the next day. Exts.D1 and D2 photographs taken on the said occasion, that is, when she visited her own house, were marked in evidence through the petitioner. The said photographs depict only about 1/5th of the gold ornaments worn by her at the time of her marriage. From this, the respondent contends that even before she reached the matrimonial home, most of her gold ornaments were taken by her father.
12. When it was put to her that the remaining gold ornaments were kept in her father's locker, she stated that the remaining ornaments were taken to the matrimonial home in jewellery boxes. But she had no such case in her pleadings. Further, the petitioner admitted that her father had a bank locker. She said that she did not know Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 28 2025:KER:43120 whether the respondent or his parents had a bank locker. It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent was staying in a rented house at the time of their marriage. Within a month of their marriage, the petitioner left for Kuwait and joined her parents. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent lived together with her parents. The above facts, coupled with the commanding position of the petitioner's father and brothers, render the petitioner's oral testimony--that she entrusted more than 90% of her gold ornaments to her mother-in-law on the very next day of the marriage-- improbable. We agree with the trial court's finding to this extent. However, it is highly probable that at least some of her gold ornaments were entrusted to the respondent's mother. It is not uncommon for a bride to entrust such valuable articles to her in-laws, both for safekeeping and as a gesture of trust and goodwill aimed at fostering familial harmony. Before drawing any inference as to the quantity of gold Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 29 2025:KER:43120 ornaments that might have been entrusted to the respondent's mother, it is necessary to consider certain other peculiar aspects of the case, and hence, we stop short of making any such finding at this moment.
13. The next point for determination is with respect to the allegation that the petitioner's father had given Rs.30 lakhs to the respondent. The trial court found that the petitioner had succeeded in showing only that Rs.10 lakhs were entrusted to the respondent at the time of marriage engagement. Relying on Ext.B3 e-mail purportedly sent by the father of the petitioner, the trial court found that the alleged entrustment of 20 lakhs is unbelievable. Let us now consider the said issue.
14. During the cross-examination of the petitioner, a specific question was put to her--namely, whether the marriage proposal was first initiated on 27.08.2009. She responded that she did not know. Subsequently, she was Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 30 2025:KER:43120 asked whether a particular email ID belonged to her father, to which she gave the same response. Thereafter, Ext.B3, the email allegedly sent by her father to the respondent's father on 27.08.2009, was shown to her, and she was asked whether it was sent by her father. She replied that she was not sure. Ext.B3 reads as follows:
"Ali,Shamsudeen<[email protected]>Thus,Aug 27,2009 at 11:46 AM To:[email protected] Dear Saleem Sahib Thanks for the photos.
Attached pl.find the photo of my daughter Muneeba, who is 22 yrs. of age and completed her Btech course.
If you people are interested to further proceed in the matter, pl inform your feedback.
Rgrds.
Shamsudeen Ali Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 31 2025:KER:43120 Snr Internal Auditor Kuwait Petroleum Corporation - KOC Unit.
Tel:23873620 (O) 66729119 (M) Fax : 23980987"
It is relevant to note that when PW2, the petitioner's father, was examined before the court, he did not dispute ownership of the email ID in question. Although he denied having sent the email allegedly addressed to the respondent's father, he did not deny that the email ID belonged to him, even when his attention was specifically drawn to it. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the respondent and his father, RW2, that the proposal for the marriage was initiated pursuant to Ext.B3 e-mail dated 27.08.2009. If that be so, the trial court is correct in holding that there was no occasion for the petitioner's father to Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 32 2025:KER:43120 entrust any money even before the marriage proposal was initiated. It is true that the petitioner has produced a bank statement to show that on 29.05.2009, her father had withdrawn ₹20.5 lakhs. However, in the above factual circumstances, this record holds no relevance. That said, upon consideration of the entire evidence, we find the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on this point to be not trustworthy.
15. Similarly, we also find that the trial court rightly held that the petitioner succeeded in establishing that her father had entrusted a sum of ₹10 lakhs to the respondent at the time of the engagement. The oral testimony of PW2 on this aspect is clear and credible, and the trial court rightly placed reliance on it.
16. The next issue to be determined is whether the respondent is liable to pay or share the expenses related to the marriage. Upon analysing the evidence of PW1, PW2, Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 33 2025:KER:43120 RW1, and RW2, we are inclined to accept the petitioner's claim that an amount of ₹12,30,000/- was incurred towards marriage expenses and ₹1,00,000/- for the engagement ceremony. According to the petitioner, it is customary in their community for the bridegroom to bear the entire expenses of the marriage and related ceremonies. This assertion was categorically denied by the respondent in his written statement. However, a close examination of the evidence adduced by RW1 and RW2 reveals that they have a claim that they shared half of the said amount. It is undisputed that RW2 contributed ₹50,000/- out of the ₹1,00,000/- incurred for the engagement. In the light of the above, it is sufficient to conclude that the respondent had, at the very least, agreed to share half of the overall expenses. Since the respondent has failed to establish that he contributed to the marriage expenses, he is liable to pay half of the said expenses, as rightly held by the trial court.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 34 2025:KER:43120
17. The Family Court further found that the respondent is liable to pay the value of a brand new Honda City car, which was given to him by the petitioner's father at the time of marriage. At the appellate stage, the learned counsel for the respondent produced two email communications, purportedly sent by the petitioner's father to the respondent, and persuasively argued that these communications clearly indicate that the sale of the car was carried out at the insistence of the petitioner's father. Consequently, it was contended that there was no occasion for the respondent to receive the sale proceeds. Though these documents were not produced during the trial, their contents were put to PW1 and PW2 during cross- examination. Thus, we have the benefit of considering their text, even without admitting them in evidence at this belated stage.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 35 2025:KER:43120
18. We have already found the said email account belongs to the petitioner's father, and that his denial of the same is untenable. Indeed, the contents of the emails reveal a firm stance taken by the petitioner's father in relation to the sale of the car. He had insisted that the respondent should sell the vehicle, and further asserted that keeping it idle in India while the couple resided in Kuwait was inadvisable. He further directed that the car be sold to one Ashraf, a relative of the respondent.
19. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded to accept that the respondent is absolved of the obligation to return the value of the brand-new car merely because the sale was initiated at the request of the petitioner's father. The evidence on record clearly shows that the car was placed at the disposal of the respondent, after the marriage. Thus, it is only reasonable to infer that the respondent received the sale proceeds when the vehicle was sold to Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 36 2025:KER:43120 his near relative. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the Family Court on this issue.
20. Now we have to consider a crucial aspect in this matter. As observed at the beginning, an agreement (Ext. A20) was executed by the father of the respondent and the uncle of the petitioner, at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva. As per this, the parties have agreed to settle all their disputes on payment of Rs.65 lakhs by the respondent. One of the most important terms of the said agreement reads that the amount agreed to be repaid (Rs.65 lakhs) by the respondent is to compensate everything, including the rightful share given to the petitioner at the time of her marriage. The agreement further states that the custody of the daughter would be retained by the petitioner and she would be sent with the respondent for at least 15 days in every six Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 37 2025:KER:43120 months. It is also agreed to separate the marital tie by following the Islamic Sharia law, while withdrawing all cases instituted by both sides. Thus, the agreement, if enforceable, covers the claim for money, gold ornaments and all other valuables brought by the petitioner.
21. Let us now consider the question of the validity of Ext. A20. According to the petitioner, irrespective of Ext. A20, she is entitled to recover whatever amount is actually due to her, as she is not a signatory to the agreement. However, she contends that the respondent is, at the very least, bound by the admissions contained therein. Conversely, the respondent challenges the validity of Ext. A20, asserting that it was not executed voluntarily by his father. He claims that the agreement was signed under compulsion, alleging that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, at whose instance the agreement was drawn up, exerted undue influence, threats, and Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 38 2025:KER:43120 coercion upon his father to secure the execution of the document.
22. Upon perusing the deposition of the respondent, we find no merit in the stance taken by him. In M.C. No. 4/2013, which was filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the respondent had given evidence before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This statement was marked in the present case as Ext. A21, during his cross- examination. In that statement, he clearly acknowledged that his father and the petitioner's uncle had executed an agreement (Ext. A20), and that his father had agreed, on his behalf, to pay Rs. 65 lakhs to the petitioner. When specifically asked whether the agreement was executed solely on behalf of his father or also on his own, he categorically affirmed it was on his behalf. He also stated that the agreed amount had not been paid only Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 39 2025:KER:43120 because the petitioner's father did not accept the agreement. These admissions clearly show that the respondent had no doubt about the validity of the agreement at least until he made the statement before the Magistrate. When confronted with Ext. A21 former statement, he admitted of having made such a statement.
23. When it was put to him that he had not raised any objection to Ext.A20 agreement even during his examination before the said court, he attempted to explain that, since the agreement was executed at a police station, he believed it lacked legal validity, and therefore thought it unnecessary to express any objection in a proceeding instituted for a different purpose. This explanation is clearly inconsistent with his earlier stance, where he went to the extent of asserting that the agreement had been executed on his behalf and that he was willing to pay the agreed amount, provided the petitioner had Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 40 2025:KER:43120 co-operated. Thus, we find no bonafides in the defence raised by the respondent against Ext.A20. His subsequent explanation is clearly an afterthought.
24. The trial court decreed the matter by relying on Ext. A20, noting the influential public position held by the respondent's father at the time of its execution. Admittedly, RW2 was then a leader of one of the ruling political parties and maintained close connections with the local MLA and other influential figures. As rightly observed by the Family Court, a person of such stature would not have remained passive if he had been coerced into signing the agreement. We fully concur with this finding. The respondent raised objections to Ext. A20 for the first time only during the trial of the present case. Even when Ext. A20 was put to him during his examination before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, he did not raise any protest regarding its validity. Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 41 2025:KER:43120
25. Thus, we find that the respondent is bound to act upon the agreement. The mere fact that it was executed at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police does not render it invalid. It may not be the place at which the agreement was executed that makes it valid or enforceable; it is the element of free will upon which it was endorsed that is the decisive factor.
26. Though the trial court found that the entrustment of gold ornaments to the respondent's mother was not established, we have arrived at a different conclusion based on the circumstances discussed. Admittedly, the precise quantity of gold so entrusted remains uncertain. In matters arising from intimate family dealings, courts are often required to draw reasonable inferences from the available material. In this case, however, the evidentiary footing is relatively stronger, as we have already found Ext. A20 to be valid and binding on the respondent. Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 42 2025:KER:43120
27. While the petitioner disputes the finality of Ext. A20, her contention is that the respondent's liability exceeds what is stated therein--not that the obligations under the agreement are invalid. The respondent, in his earlier deposition admitted that the agreed amount was not paid solely because the petitioner's father did not accept the terms. Although the petitioner could not convincingly establish that the entire gold was entrusted to the respondent's mother, the existence of some entrustment is evident from Ext. A20, which was executed by the respondent's father on his behalf. Though the petitioner claims that the agreement is not binding on her as she did not sign it, it is evident from all the attending circumstances that it was executed by her uncle as authorised by her. Thus, let us now consider whether there are any indications in the materials on record as to the extent of the gold ornaments which is accounted for in the agreement.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 43 2025:KER:43120
28. We have found that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount entrusted with the respondent at the time of engagement, the price of the car and half of the amount spent for the marriage expenses. It comes around Rs.26,15,000/- (Rs.10 lakhs + Rs.10 lakhs + Rs.6,15,000/-). When the father of the petitioner was cross-examined before the court, he said that the value of the gold ornaments sought to be recovered from the respondent would come approximately Rs.62 lakhs. It is clear from his statement that he is referring to 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments. We have earlier concluded that the petitioner failed to show that she entrusted 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments with the respondent or his family members. We already found that Ext. A20 covers the claims for money, gold ornaments and all other valuables brought by the petitioner. It certainly covers the value of the gold ornaments entrusted to the mother. Though the exact quantity is thus immaterial, there are some Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 44 2025:KER:43120 indications even about it. The agreed amount, after deducting Rs.26.15 lakhs, accounts for gold ornaments worth Rs.38.85 lakhs (65 lakhs - 26.15 lakhs). This represents about 65% of the gold ornaments claimed, even as per the valuation of the respondent's father. The decreed amount is thus fair and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the findings of the trial court. In view of the above findings, the appeals preferred against the said judgment are only to be dismissed.
MC No.113/2013
29. In M.C. No. 113/2013, the petitioner sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and her minor child. She asserted that she and the child had been living separately from the respondent since 18.11.2012 and that the respondent had neglected to provide for their maintenance. The petitioner Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 45 2025:KER:43120 claimed that she was unemployed and lacked independent means to support herself and the child. Accordingly, she sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 for herself and ₹10,000 for the child. In response, the respondent contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance, having voluntarily deserted him without reasonable or justifiable cause. He further argued that the petitioner, being well-educated and hailing from a wealthy and affluent family, was capable of supporting herself, and that the maintenance claim was therefore unsustainable.
30. The trial court partly allowed the petition. It was found that the petitioner had subsequently secured employment and was capable of maintaining herself, thereby declining her claim for maintenance. However, the court granted maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the minor child from the date of the petition.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 46 2025:KER:43120
31. We have duly considered the contentions advanced by both parties. It is evident that the petitioner belongs to an affluent family. She remarried in February, 2022. Additionally, the Magistrate Court has allowed her claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, for maintenance for the iddat period and towards a reasonable and fair provision. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the trial court's order declining maintenance to the petitioner. We also find no merit in the respondent's challenge to the maintenance granted to the minor child. The child is currently studying in the 9th standard, and the amount of ₹10,000 per month is barely reasonable and appropriate, given the financial capacity of both parties. Accordingly, the order of the trial court warrants no modification.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 47 2025:KER:43120 O.P.No.1362/2013 and 1552/2013
32. O.P. No. 1362/2013 was filed by the respondent under Sections 7, 10, and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking permanent custody of the minor daughter, Fathima Zahara, who was born on 26.03.2011 during the subsistence of the marital relationship. It was contended that following the dissolution of the marriage by pronouncement of Talaq, the child remained in the custody of the petitioner (wife), who allegedly failed to take proper care of the child. It was further alleged that the wife did not permit the respondent or his family members to meet the child. O.P. No. 1552/2013 was filed by the petitioner (wife) under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking her appointment as the guardian of the minor child and for a direction entrusting her with permanent custody.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 48 2025:KER:43120
33. Upon evaluating the evidence adduced by both parties, the Family Court concluded that the child was being well cared for by the mother, as evidenced by her strong academic performance. Nevertheless, the court appointed the father as the legal guardian, considering him to be the natural guardian under the personal law, while granting permanent custody of the child to the mother. Both parties challenge this order.
34. While considering the respective grounds of challenge raised by both sides to the Family Court's findings, we deemed it necessary to interact with the minor child to ascertain her well-being and obtain her views regarding the current custodial arrangement. During the interaction, we observed that the child is well looked after by the mother and that she expressed complete satisfaction with the existing arrangement. She also expressed that she is happy with both her parents and Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 49 2025:KER:43120 further affirmed her willingness to meet and visit her father.
35. In view of the child's expressed contentment and overall well-being under the current arrangement, we are of the considered view that the present custodial setup serves the best interests and welfare of the minor. Further, the learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to demonstrate any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order based on the factual matrix of the case. Accordingly, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. The impugned order is therefore upheld.
MC 4/2013
36. M.C. No. 4/2013 was filed by the wife before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 50 2025:KER:43120 1986, seeking maintenance during the iddat period and a reasonable and fair provision for her future. The petitioner contended that, as a divorced Muslim woman, she was entitled to ₹75 lakhs as reasonable and fair provision, along with ₹75,000 as maintenance for the iddat period. She asserted that the respondent, a Chartered Accountant working both in India and abroad, initially earned ₹1,50,000 per month, which later increased to ₹2,00,000 and subsequently to ₹3,00,000 plus incentives. The respondent disputed the claim, alleging that his actual income was around 600 Saudi Riyals per month (approximately ₹85,000). He further contended that a portion of his earnings was allocated toward supporting his aged parents and his wife in a subsequent marriage.
37. Relying on Ext. A6, the salary certificate dated 05.11.2014, the trial court found that the respondent was receiving a basic salary of 550 Kuwaiti Dinar, equivalent Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 51 2025:KER:43120 to approximately ₹1,23,000. Considering the relevant factors for determining a reasonable and fair provision-- such as the income and status of the parties at the time of divorce, the age of the petitioner, and the financial circumstances of both parties--the trial court concluded that a monthly amount of ₹20,000 for a period of 15 years would constitute a reasonable and fair provision for the future of the petitioner. Consequently, it awarded a lump sum of ₹36 lakhs, along with ₹60,000 as maintenance during the iddat period.
38. As a general rule, the determination of a reasonable and fair provision must take into account the social and financial standing of both parties at the time of divorce. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner hails from an affluent family and the respondent is also financially stable, working as a Chartered Accountant in India and abroad, as evidenced by Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 52 2025:KER:43120 Ext. P6 and the testimonies on record. While the trial court calculated the provision based on a prospective period of 15 years, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner remarried after 8 years and 4 months, in February 2022. Though the entitlement to a reasonable and fair provision under the statute is not expressly confined to the period up to remarriage--as it is intended to secure the future of the divorced woman--the fact of remarriage cannot be ignored when reassessing the quantum of the amount awarded. In hindsight, given that the petitioner has since remarried and is presumably being cared for by her present husband, we find it appropriate to re-fix the amount of reasonable and fair provision at ₹20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs), corresponding to ₹20,000 per month for the actual period of 8 years and 4 months. No interference is required with respect to the sum of ₹60,000 awarded as maintenance during the iddat period. Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 53 2025:KER:43120 In the result, Crl.R.P.No.1327/2019 is allowed in part and the amount for fair and reasonable provision is reduced to Rs.20 lakhs, instead of 36 lakhs. Crl.R.P.No.962/2018, R.P.(FC) No.54/2020 and Mat.Appeal Nos. 518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019 are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 54 2025:KER:43120 APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 520/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit A26 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ 1ST ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
827/2014Exhibit A27 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ 2ND ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
827/2014.
Exhibit A28 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ 3RD ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
827/2014.
Exhibit A29 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DIARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, WHEREIN THE 1ST RESPONDENT HAS WRITTEN IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING THAT SOME OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS OF THE APPLICANT WERE SOLD AT DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 55 2025:KER:43120 APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 565/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF SUMAYYA, THE DAUGHTER OF THE DEPONENT WITH NOUSHAD ISSUED ON 13.02.2010 BY ALUVA MUSLIM JAMA-ATH SOLEMNIZING HER MARRIAGE AT BRIDE'S RESIDENCE, ALUVA Annexure-A2 TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, NAMELY 1. NIKAH CEREMONY OF SUMAYYA WITH NOUSHAD AND PHOTOGRAPH OF SUMAYYA WITH BRIDEGROOM Annexure-A3 THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR GENERAL AND AGRICULTURAL ADVANCES OF THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2008 TO 11.06.2024 ISSUED BY CANARA BANK, ALUVA IN RESPECT OF THE EDUCATION LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS SANCTIONED TO MUHAMMED SAWAD Annexure-A4 THE MARRIAGE FUNCTION OF THE SECOND DAUGHTER OF THIS DEPONENT WAS SOLEMNIZED AT THE JAMIA JUMA MASJID ITSELF.
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 11.08.2016 BY ALUVA MUSLIM JAMA-ATH CERTIFYING THE MARRIAGE OF SAFEERA WITH SIRAJ ON 08.07.2016 Annexure-A5 CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED ON 18.05.2015 BY THE LOCAL REGISTRAR & SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT CERTIFYING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUHAMMAD SAWAD.E.S. WITH NISAMOL ON 24.04.2015 AT ALANGAD MUSLIM JUMA MASJID Annexure-A6 TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL DATED 28.07.2010 Annexure-A7 TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL DATED 29.07.2010 Annexure-A8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.827/2014 DATED 24.02.2021 ACQUITTING THE APPELLANTS Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019, RP(FC)NO.54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018, 56 2025:KER:43120 Annexure-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.04.2013 SENT BY THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT