Kerala High Court
U.K.Muhamed vs Shereefa on 26 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RPFC NO. 297 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2014 IN MC 22/2013 OF FAMILY
COURT, VATAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
U.K.MUHAMED,
S/O.AHAMMADKUTTY,
AGED 40 YEARS,
UMMINIKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, UNNIKULAM AMSOM,
POONOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SRI.S.KANNAN
SMT.NEENU.P.KUMAR
SMT.M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHEREEFA,
AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O.KUNHABDULLA,
NADUPARAMBIL HOSUE,
KALPATHOOR AMSOM, VALYAKODE DESOM,
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 305.
2 SENTEEZ MUHAMMED(MINOR),
AGED 12 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN SHEREEFA,
D/O.KUNHABDULLA, NADUPARAMBIL HOSUE, KALPATHOOR
AMSOM, VALYAKODE DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE-673 305.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
-:2:-
Dated this the 26th day of October,2023
ORDER
The revision petition is filed assailing the order in
M.C.No.22/2013 of the Family Court, Vatakara,
directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance
allowance to the respondents 1 and 2 - his wife and
daughter - at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. The
revision petitioner was the respondent and the
respondents were the petitioners in the above petition.
2. The respondents had filed the petition under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code'
for short), inter-alia, stating that the first respondent
was married to the revision petitioner on 20.08.2000,
and the second respondent was born in the wedlock.
The revision petitioner and his sisters used to harass
and humiliate the first respondent. She was forced to
file a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate,
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
Act, 2005. During the pendency of the said proceeding,
she received a letter from the revision petitioner
informing her that he divorced her. The revision
petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents.
The revision petitioner is employed abroad and earning
a monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. The respondents
have no source of income and are depending on the
first respondent's brother and mother for their
sustenance and livelihood. The second respondent is a
school going child. The respondents jointly require
Rs.5,000/- per month for their maintenance. Hence,
the petition.
3. The revision petitioner resisted the petition by
filing a written objection and refuting the allegations in
the petition. It was his case that, during the period he
was employed abroad, the first respondent developed
an intimacy with another person. On questioning her,
she admitted the relationship. Thereafter, on mutual
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
consensus, the parties got divorced. The first
respondent took all her belongings and left the
matrimonial home on 31.03.2012. The revision
petitioner has no job or avocation and is unable to
maintain the respondents. Hence, the petition may be
dismissed.
4. In the trial, the first respondent was examined
as PW1 and the revision petitioner was examined as
RW1 and Exts B1 and B2 were marked through him in
evidence.
5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings
and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly
allowed the petition, by directing the revision
petitioner to pay the respondents a monthly
maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.2,000/-, respectively.
6. It is assailing the said order, the present
revision petition is filed.
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
7. Heard; Sri.Firoz K.M., the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner.
8. The point is whether there is any irregularity,
impropriety or illegality in the impugned order passed
by the Family Court.
9. The revision petitioner does not dispute the
marriage or the paternity of the child. On a perusal of
the materials on record, it is seen that the revision
petitioner was employed abroad. It is his defence that,
the first respondent had developed a relationship with
another person, which led to the estrangement of the
marriage and, thereafter, the marriage was dissolved,
on mutual consensus.
10. The revision petitioner has no case that first
respondent has remarried after the divorce. He also
does not dispute the paternity of the child. His cardinal
contention is that he has no job or avocation to
maintain the respondents.
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
11. It is well settled that a divorced wife is
entitled to maintenance. The law is also settled in a
plethora of judgments that an able bodied person is
bound to maintain his wife and child, [read Anju Garg
& another v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 805]. Section 125 of the Code was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial sufferings and
hardship of women and children. The husband/father
has a sacrosanct duty to maintain his wife and
children.
12. The Family Court, after appreciating the rival
contentions and oral testimonies of the revision
petitioner and the first respondent, concluded that the
revision petitioner has the ability and means to
maintain the respondents by paying Rs.5,000/- per
month from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from
02.02.2013.
13. On a consideration of the pleadings and
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
materials on record, and after perusing the impugned
order, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety
in the impugned order warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its revisional powers under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964.
14. When the revision petition came up for
admission on 13.08.2014, this Court had stayed the
execution of the impugned order, subject to the
condition that the revision petitioner deposits 50% of
the arrears of maintenance within one month and
continues to pay maintenance at the same rate ordered
by the Family Court till the disposal of the revision
petition.
The revision petition is devoid of any merits and is
only liable to be dismissed. Needless to mention, the
revision petitioner would be entitled to adjustment of
the amount already paid as per the interim order of
this Court. The Registry is directed to forward a copy
R.P.(FC)No.297/2014
of this order to the Family Court for further
proceedings.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/26.10.23 //True copy//
P.A. To Judge
