Kerala High Court
M.C.Aboobacker Haji vs Noufal K on 3 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/3/2017 IN O.P.NO.318/2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
--------
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
M.C.ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHU, MUSALIYARAKATH, BLATHOOR,
KALLYAD AMSOM, KALLYAD P.O. PIN-670593,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MARIYAM K., AGED 53 YEARS,W/O.ABOOBACKER,
JASEERA MANZIL, BLATHOOR, KALLYAD AMSOM,
KALLYAD P.O., PIN-670593, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS MAT.APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.08.2023,
ALONG WITH R.P.(FC) NO.262/2018, R.P.(FC) 359/2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.622/2017 and conn.cases 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945
RPFC NO. 262 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/04/2018 IN M.C.NO.199/2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M.C.ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, MUSALIYARAKATH HOUSE,
KALLIAD AMSOM, BLATHUR DESOM, KALLIAD.P.O.,
PIN-670593, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENTS/CPUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 NOUFAL K., S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI,
AGED 35 YEARS, BUSINESS, JASEERA MANZIL,
KALLIAD AMSOM, BLATHUR DESOM, KALLIAD.P.O,
KANNUR-670593.
2 RIYAS.K., S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 29 YEARS,
COLLEGE TEACHER, JASEERA MANZIL, KALLIAD AMSOM,
BLATHUR DESOM, KALLIAD.P.O, KANNUR-670593.
BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.08.2023, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.622/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.622/2017 and conn.cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945
R.P.(FC) NO.359 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/03/2017 IN M.C.NO.138/2016
OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
M.C.ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHU, MUSALIYARAKATH,
BLATHOOR, KALLYAD AMSOM, KALLYAD P.O.,
PIN - 670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MARIYAM K., AGED 53 YEARS,
W/O.ABOOBACKER, JASEERA MANZIL,
BLATHOOR, KALLYAD AMSOM, KALLYAD P.O,
PIN- 670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.08.2023, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL No.622/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.622/2017 and conn.cases 4
JUDGMENT
[Mat.Appeal No.622/2017 and R.P.(FC) Nos.262/2018
and 359/2017]
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These matters are related to the maintenance claim
raised by the respondents. The respondent in Mat.Appeal
No.622/2017 and R.P.(FC) No.359/2017 is the legally
wedded wife of the appellant and the revision petitioner.
The Family Court awarded Rs.5,000/- per month towards
past maintenance covering the period from 26.06.2013 to
25.06.2016. That is under challenge in Mat.Appeal
No.622/2017. In M.C.No.138/2016, monthly maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- was awarded. As against the judgment in
M.C.No.138/2016, R.P.(FC) No.359/2017 was filed.
similarly, M.C.No.199/017 filed by the revision
petitioner against the children, the Family Court
declined to grant any maintenance in his favour. This is
challenged in R.P.(FC) No.262/2018. To understand the
issue, we take R.P.(FC) No.262/2018 as a leading case.
According to the revision petitioner therein, he was in
the gulf country and constructed the house building and
educated the children. He needs Rs.10,000/- per month.
At the time of filing the maintenance case, he was 60
years old. According to him, he was suffering from old
age ailments and he has no means. The Family Court
overruled this objection. The respondents in R.P.(FC)
No.262/2018 contended that the revision petitioner is
having income from the building which has been let out to
run a chicken stall and jewellery. The Family Court
dismissed M.C.No.199/2017 and noted that he has a rental
income.
2. We do not find any reason to reappreciate the
evidence and reverse the finding entered by the Family
Court. It has come out that he is having income. He
cannot now deny his obligation to pay maintenance to his
wife. The maintenance amount awarded to the wife is
meagre and modest. We find no reason to interfere with
the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal and the
revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
We make it clear that in the event, the
appellant/revision petitioner being able to prove in the
execution stage that he has no means, nothing prevents
him from seeking maintenance under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE
ln
