Muhammed Haneefa vs Hajira
2024 Latest Caselaw 33035 Ker

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Haneefa vs Hajira on 14 November, 2024

                                             2024:KER:85360

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/23RD KARTHIKA, 1946

               CRL.REV.PET NO. 528 OF 2014

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2013 IN CRA NO.76 OF

 2012 OF SESSIONS, KASARAGOD ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT

    DATED 28.03.2012 IN MC NO.23 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL

          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

         MUHAMMED HANEEFA
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O SEDIKUNHI, R. AT SIDDIQUE MANZIL, NEAR
         MOSODI JUMA MASJID, MOSODI P.O, UPPALA,
         KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

         BY ADV SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/1ST COMPLAINANT & STATE:

    1    HAJIRA
         D/O ABOOBACKER, R/ AT RAHIM MANZIL, PADY,
         PALLAKUDAL, PAIVALIKA P.O,
         KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671121.

    2    THE STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
                                                2024:KER:85360
                                2
Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2014




              R1 BY ADV SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
              R2 BY SRI. C.N PRABHAKARAN,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 14.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2024:KER:85360
                                      3
Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2014



                      P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
                     Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024

                                ORDER

This revision petition was filed challenging the order

directing payment of maintenance to the 1 st respondent and

two children. The trial court ordered the petitioner to pay

mainteance at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month to the 1 st

respondent, Rs.500/- to the elder child and Rs.250/- to the

younger child. Both sides preferred appeal. The appeal filed

by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the 1 st

respondent was allowed in part. While the quantum of

maintenance to the 1st respondent was confirmed,

maintenance to be paid to the children were enhanced. The

appellate court ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- to the elder child and Rs.1,900/- to the younger

child for the period from the date of filing of the petition.

2. Despite receipt of notice, the 1st respondent did not

choose to appear before this Court.

2024:KER:85360

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The marital relationship is not in dispute. The fact

that the parties are living separate now is also beyond dispute.

From the materials on record, it is seen that the 1 st respondent is

not able to maintain herself. In such circumstances, the right of

the 1st respondent to get maintenance for herself and children

from the petitioner cannot be denied. Upholding that right, the

courts below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance. Of

course, there is no clinching evidence regarding the income being

derived by the petitioner. However, he is not a person of no

means. He has employment, though not regular, been generating

income. Considering all the aspects that came on record, the

appellate court fixed the quantum of maintenance.

5. Having gone through the materials on record, I find

no reason to interfere with the view taken by the appellate court.

Therefore, this revision is bound to fail. Hence, the revision

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr