Muhammed Abdurahman vs Ramla
2021 Latest Caselaw 14279 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
      THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
                         RPFC NO. 69 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 57/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,
                        MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          MUHAMMED ABDURAHMAN
          AGED 64 YEARS
          S/O. KUTTIALI HAJI, KOORIMANNIL VILANGAPPURATH HOUSE,
          MANKADA, PALLIPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 324

          BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI)



RESPONDENT/PEITIONER:

          RAMLA
          AGED 42 YEARS
          W/O. MUHAMMED ABDURAHMAN, C/O. CHERLIKALATHIL KUNHALAN,
          CHERLIKALATHIL HOUSE, THELAKKAD P.O, PERINTHALMANNA,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 324

          BY ADVS.
          KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN
          K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
          VANDANA MENON
          VIMAL VIJAY



     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 69 OF 2021
                                  2

                                ORDER

The maintenance order is brought under

challenge in this revision petition on the

ground that he is not having sufficient income

to maintain the wife. Admittedly it is his

second marriage and first wife passed away.

What is ordered by the Family Court is only an

amount of RS.3,500/- per month to the wife.

There is no dispute with respect to

solemnization of marriage as per the religious

customs.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the marriage has not

consummated on account of the ailment to the

prostrate gland of petitioner husband. But the

learned counsel for the respondent countered the

same by stating that thereafter he entered into

a third marriage with another lady. It was

taken into consideration by the Family Court in RPFC NO. 69 OF 2021

paragraph 6 of the impugned order.

3. What is ordered by the Family Court is

only a meager amount and the marriage is also

not in dispute. The capacity to maintain the

wife is well evident from the fact that he had

entered into a third marriage in spite of the

allegation of ailment with the prostate gland.

I could not find any reason to admit this RPFC

and hence deserves only dismissal.

RPFC is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV RPFC NO. 69 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE HISTOPATHOLOGY REPORT OF THE PETITIOENR FROM BMH, KOZHIKODE.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE