Srambikkal Abdulla vs Srambikkal Abdulla
2021 Latest Caselaw 3641 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                       RPFC.No.270 OF 2007

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 408/2006 DATED 16-03-2007 OF
                    FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM


REVISION PETITIONER/S/RESPONDENT:

             SRAMBIKKAL ABDULLA
             ATHIKUNDIL HOUSE, ERANHIKKODE, THOTTEKKAD,, PULPATTA
             P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
             BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,, SRAMBIKKAL ISMAIL
             HAJI, S/O.ALAVI HAJI, MEKKA MANZIL, KARUVARAKUNDU,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.A.SHAJI
             SMT.T.V.NEEMA

RESPONDENT/S/PETITIONERS:

      1      FATHIMA
             AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.PALAMADATHIL MOIDEEN,
             P.O.PULPPATTA,, ERNADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

      2      UMMUHATHIYA 14 YEARS (MINOR)
             D/O.SRAMBIKKAL ABDULLA.

      3      MUHSINA 12 YEARS l(MINOR)
             D/O.SRAMBIKKAL ABDULLA.

      4      DILSHAD 7 YEARS (MINOR)
             S/O.SRAMBIKKAL ABDULLA, MINOR RESPONDENT,
             ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT.


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC.No.270 OF 2007

                            2

                      O R D E R

The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are minor children of

the revision petitioner, who are students. Admittedly,

the petitioner is working abroad. The court below

awarded only an amount of Rs.1,300/- to the second

respondent, Rs.1,000/- to the third respondent and

Rs.7,00 to the fourth respondent towards their

monthly maintenance. The said amount is totally

insufficient to meet the expenses of the children. Even

then, the petitioner had filed this revision petition. No

ground has been urged before me by the learned

Counsel for the revision petitioner to interfere with the

order impugned.

2. Having gone through the order impugned, I

do not find any reason to hold that the order impugned RPFC.No.270 OF 2007

suffers from any illegality, impropriety and

incorrectness warranting interference by this Court.

In the result, this Revision Petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/01.02.2020