Kerala High Court
Sudeer .B vs Sumayya on 3 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 90/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SUDEER .B
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. BASHEERKUTTY, SHEMINA MANZIL,
KANNIMEL THEKKATHIL, KIZHAVOOOR,
MUKHATHALA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
BINU GEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 SUMAYYA
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. NIZAMUDHEEN, PANDAKASALA KIZHAKKATHIL
M.S. NAGAR 21, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 004
2 FATHIMATH SUHRA (MINOR),
AGED 6 YEARS, D/O. SUDHEER B,
PANDAKASALA KIZHAKKATHIL, M.S. NAGAR 21,
KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 004
(2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT.)
BY ADV P.V.DILEEP
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022
This revision petition filed under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, is at the instance of the respondent-in
M.C.No.90/2018, on the file of the Family Court, Kollam,
where the petitioners are the respondents herein.
2. Order dated 28.12.2020 in M.C.No.90/2018 is
under challenge in this revision petition, whereby the
learned Family Court, Kollam granted maintenance to
the first respondent herein, who is the petitioner-wife in
the MC, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and the
second respondent-minor, who was disabled at 75%, at
the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
3. While challenging the impugned order, it is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the first respondent is permanently employed in
Oxford School, Palathara, and in order to prove the
same, Exts.X1 to X3 were produced before the trial
court, but the trial court not acted upon the same. In
the impugned order, the Family Court observed that as
per the evidence of CPW2 and Exts.X1 to X3, the
monthly income of the first respondent herein would
come to Rs.14,450/-. Then also, the Family Court
granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the
wife.
4. In this case, the petitioner raised contention
that he had only a private job and therefore, he could
not pay maintenance to the first respondent.
5. Going by the evidence of CPW2, the job of the
1st respondent is fully established. No challenge raised
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
to dispute the same. It is interesting to note that,
during cross-examination of CPW2, the other side put
only one question, confining the same to the fact that
the first respondent used to take leave from
employment. In fact, nothing was asked during the
cross-examination of CPW2 to challenge Exts.X1 to X3.
Therefore, it is to be noted that the Family Court went
wrong in granting Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the
first respondent herein, who evidently having job and
income to maintain herself. Therefore, the claim of
maintenance allowance at the instance of the first
respondent and the order impugned is interfered
accordingly.
6. Going by the impugned order, the Family
Court granted Rs.8,000/- alone to the minor child, who
was 75% permanently disabled, as could be read out
from Ext.P4. Therefore, it could be held that the
RPFC NO. 84 OF 2021
maintenance granted by the Family Court to the minor
child is not at all on the higher side. Therefore, the said
order is confirmed.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed
in part, as indicated above.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order
to the court below concerned, within one week, for
information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
