Vijayan vs Rathika Kodakkadan
2024 Latest Caselaw 16534 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vijayan vs Rathika Kodakkadan on 11 June, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                       RPFC NO. 178 OF 2024
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2023 IN MC NO.372 OF 2022
                   OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C:

          VIJAYAN,
          AGED 41 YEARS,
          S/O. KRISHNAN, PAMBALATH (H), MAKKARAPARAMB PO,
          PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
          BY ADVS.
          P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
          JAHANA SHERIN.K


RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS IN M.C.:

    1     RATHIKA KODAKKADAN,
          AGED 33 YEARS,
          D/O. NARAYANAN, KODAKKADAN HOUSE, CHEPPOOR, PANDALLOOR,
          PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676521
    2     VAIKHA KRISHNA, AGED 6 YEARS,
          KODAKKADAN HOUSE, CHEPPOOR, PANDALLOOR, PERINTHALMANNA
          TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676521,
          REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,
          RATHIKA KODAKKADAN, PIN - 676521


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 178 OF 2024
and Crl.M.A.2/2024

                                  2


                               ORDER

The husband/father came up against the order of

maintenance for the minor child aged 4½ years at the

rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The amount ordered by

the Family Court for the maintenance of a child aged

4½ years is the bare minimum required. No sufficient

reason much less any reason was brought to the notice

of this court by the revision petitioner/father, to

interfere with the quantum of amount allowed or right

of maintenance.

The delay occasioned comes 60 days, for which

also no satisfactory explanation was forwarded. On

the other hand, it will show that the present attempt

on the part of father is to delay and defeat the

right of maintenance to a minor child aged 4½ years.

Hence, the application for condonation of delay and

the revision petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp