Moidy vs Muhammed Mubasheer @ Muhammed Ashique
2024 Latest Caselaw 5300 Ker

Kerala High Court

Moidy vs Muhammed Mubasheer @ Muhammed Ashique on 15 February, 2024

Author: Anu Sivaraman

Bench: Anu Sivaraman

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                        &
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                       MAT.APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP 112/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
APPELLANT:

             MOIDY
             AGED 43 YEARS
             S/O. KOYAKUTTY, PERUVANIUM,NAMBYATTIL, KAVUMTHARA
             AMSOM, KAVIL DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, PIN-673614.
             BY ADVS.
             SMT.LEKHA SURESH
             SRI.ASHOK SURESH
             SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY


RESPONDENT:

             MUHAMMED MUBASHEER @ MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
             AGED 40 YEARS
             MINOR NADUVILAKANDY, MEETHAL HOUSE, AVALA AMSOM,
             KUTTOTH DESOM, PIN-673524. MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
             GUARDIAN NADUVILAKANDY, MEETHAL SHEREEFA, D/O. AMMAD,
             AGED 37 YEARS, AVALA AMSOM, KUTTOTH DESOM. PIN-673524.
     THIS     MATRIMONIAL   APPEAL    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MAT.APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014
                                    2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024 ANU SIVARAMAN, J This appeal is preferred against the judgment in OP

112/2013 of the Family Court, Vadakara by the judgment under

appeal. The OP was allowed and the respondent was directed to

pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- as arrears of maintenance to the 1 st

petitioner for the period from 12.03.2010 to 11.03.2013 and the

cost of the proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the appellant was only a Madrasa

teacher and is also a disabled person. It is stated that there was

a specific contention raised by the appellant before the Family

Court that the Mahalli was required to look after all the

expenses of the 1st petitioner which was not availed by the

petitioners before the Family Court. It is further submitted that

the amount of Rs.2000/- ordered as maintenance is excessive

since there is no evidence that the appellant was earning

Rs.4000/- at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the

1st petitioner before the Family Court has now become major

and that the appellant was unable to provide the maintenance

as sought for.

MAT.APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014

2. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

notice that the claim in the OP was for maintenance at the rate

of Rs.4000/- per month for the 1st petitioner who is the son of

the 2nd petitioner and the respondent who is the appellant

herein. It was contended that an agreement was entered into

for payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance of the

1st petitioner for 7 years and that the 2nd petitioner had

expended an amount of 4000/- each month for the maintenance

of the 1st petitioner. The appellant had filed a counter statement

admitting that the 1st petitioner is his son and that as per

agreement, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the 1 st

petitioner towards maintenance for 7 years. However, it is

stated that he used to see the petitioner and pay maintenance

to him and that he sustained injury in an accident in the year

1996 and became unable to pay maintenance to the 1 st

petitioner. He also stated that he is getting only an amount of

Rs.2500/- per month as teacher in the Madrassa.

3. After considering the contentions and the evidence

placed on record by the parties, the Family court came to the

conclusion that the appellant is getting not less than Rs.4000/- MAT.APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014

per month and that the 1st petitioner is entitled to maintenance

at the rate of Rs.2000 per month from 12.03.2010 to 11.03.2011

and Rs.2500/- per month with effect from the date of filing of

the petition ie, 12.03.2010.

4. Having considered the contentions advanced on

either side and having perused the judgment, we are of the

opinion that there does not appear to be any error in the

conclusion reached by the Family Court that an amount of

Rs.2000/- per month is liable to be paid to the 1 st petitioner as

maintenance from 12.03.2010 to 11.03.2013 at the rate of

Rs.2500/- thereafter.

The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

sd/-

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE Nsd