Mullantharayil Kabeer vs Saheera M
2021 Latest Caselaw 16027 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
        MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         RPFC NO. 153 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 98/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR,
                              MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            MULLANTHARAYIL KABEER
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O.SAULAIMAN, MULLANTHARAYIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL,
            KATTAKKAMBAL P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680544.

            BY ADV T.U.SUJITH KUMAR



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       SAHEERA M.,
            AGED 25 YEARS
            D/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, ERACHATT THEKKEYIL HOUSE,
            MARANCHERY AMSOM, PAREECHAKAM DESOM, MARANCHERY P.O.,
            PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679581.

    2       MUHAMMED BADUSHA,
            AGED 4 YEARS
            S/O.MULLANTHARAYIL KABEER, ERACHATT THEKKEYIL HOUSE,
            MARANCHERY AMSOM, PAREECHAKAM DESOM, MARANCHERY P.O.,
            PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679581. (RESPONDENT 2 IS
            MINOR REP. BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, HIS MOTHER)


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 153 OF 2021
                                2

                              ORDER

The order granting maintenance to the wife

@ Rs.3,000/- per month and the child @

Rs.4,500/- per month brought under Challenge on

the reason that he is not bound to maintain the

wife, on the ground alleged desertion. But,

admittedly the application submitted for

restitution of conjugal right ended in

dismissal. That itself would show non-existence

of such a ground. In any event, once it was

rejected, the same cannot be a ground to deny

the maintenance to the legally wedded wife.

What is ordered against the wife is only a

megre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month and

Rs.4,500/-per month to the minor child. By

taking into consideration that, it is quite

insufficient to meet the requirements, there

cannot be any interference. There is no reason

for interfering with the matter. Hence the RPFC NO. 153 OF 2021

same is liable to be dismissed in limine. I do

so.

RP(FC) is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV