Kerala High Court
Muneeba Shamsudeen vs Muhammed Safeek on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
1
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1552 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 33 YEARS,D/O SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD,
KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O A.K.SALIM,
RESIDING AT 1/121 C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2
2025:KER:43120
PONJASSERI P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT APPEAL NOS.519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO. 54/2020 & CRL.R.P.NOS. 1327/2019, 962/2018, THE
COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
3
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 962 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2018 IN MC NO.4 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A,CHIRAKUZHUY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY
JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN - 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.A.K.SALIM,
PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
4
2025:KER:43120
PONJASSERI P.O, - 683547.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
5
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1362 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 33 YEARS,D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A,
CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION,
DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. A.K. SALIM,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
6
2025:KER:43120
RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERI P.O, PERUMBAVUR-683547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
7
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.496 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS,D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI,
37/2790 A,CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,KARUKAPPALLY
JUNCTION,DESABHIMAN ROAD,KALOOR, COCHIN-17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.A.K.SALIM,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE,PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERI.P.O,PERUMBAVUR.PIN-683547
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
8
2025:KER:43120
2 A.I.SALIM,
AGED 66 YEARS,S/O.A.A,KOCHUNNI,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELANJIKAYIL HOUSE,
PATTIPPARA,PONJASSERI.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
3 ASMA SALIM,
AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.A.K.SALIM,RESIDING AT
1/121 C,ELANJIKAYIL HOUSE,
PATTIPPARA,PONJASSERI.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
9
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.496 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 MUHAMMED SAFEEK,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR, PIN - 683 547.
2 A.K.SALIM,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.A.A.KOZHUNNI, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
3 ASMA SALIM,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
10
2025:KER:43120
ELENJIKKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA,
PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN,
AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A,
CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE, KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION,
DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN - 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
11
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1552 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY.P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER A.K.SALIM RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY.P.O, PERUMBAVUR,
PIN-683547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN ALI, 37/2790A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
12
2025:KER:43120
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
COCHIN-17
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
13
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN OP NO.1362 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. A.K. SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O. PERUMBAVUR,
PIN 683 547, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER A.K. SALIM RESIDING AT 1/121 C, ELENJIKAYIL
HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O. PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
14
2025:KER:43120
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALLOR,
COCHIN 17.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NO.518/2019 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
15
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RPFC NO. 54 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2019 IN MC NO.113 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SAFEEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. A.K.SALIM, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 1/121C,
ELENJIKKAYIL HOUSE, PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O.,
PERUMBAVUR, NOW WORKING AT M/S. EARNST AND YOUNG,
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, CONSULTANTS, 9TH FLOOR ABAD
NUCLEUS MALL, MARADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 304,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
A.K.SALIM, RESIDING AT 1/121C, ELENJIKAYIL HOSUE,
PATTIPPARA, PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVUR,
PIN - 683 547
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED 32 YEARS
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
16
2025:KER:43120
D/O. SHAMSUDEEN ALI, 37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 017
2 FATHIMA ZAHARA
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED SAFEED, 37/2790 A, CHIRAKUZHY HOUSE,
KARUKAPPALLY JUNCTION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND LEGAL AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
17
2025:KER:43120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1327 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2018 IN MC NO.4 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(E&O),ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED SHEFEEQ
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O SALIM,1/121C,ELENJIKKAL
HOUSE,PATTIPARA,POONJASSERY P.O.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.K.P.AMBIKA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM
2 MUNEEBA SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 29 YEARS
D/O SHAMSUDEEN ALI,37/2790A,CHIRAKKUZHI
HOUSE,KARUKAPPILLY JUNCTION,DESHABHIMANI ROAD,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
18
2025:KER:43120
KALOOR, COCHIN-17
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.06.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.518/2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
19
2025:KER:43120
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019,519/2019,520/2019,565/2019,
850/2019, 851/2019, Crl.R.P.Nos.962/2018, 1327/2019 &
R.P.(FC)No.54/2020
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19thday of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
All the above proceedings are essentially between the
husband and the wife. The wife filed O.P.No.496/2013
before the Family Court, Ernakulam, claiming recovery of
261 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.30,00,000/-, the
marriage expenses and the cost of a car entrusted to the
husband at the time of marriage. O.P.No.1362/2013 was
filed by the husband claiming the custody of their child,
and O.P.No.1552/2013 was filed by the wife for declaration
of her guardianship and custody of the child. The wife
further filed M.C.No.113/2013 claiming maintenance @
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for her and daughter
respectively. The Family Court ordered a joint trial of
all the three original petitions and separately tried the
maintenance case. After hearing all the cases together,
the court disposed of the matters through a common
judgment, which is impugned in these appeals by both
sides.
2. As per the common judgment, the Family Court
permitted the wife to realise Rs.65 lakhs together with
interest @ 6% by charging the said amount on the property
attached by the court, which belongs to the husband and
his relatives. The court further appointed the father as
the legal guardian of the minor and the mother as the
permanent custodian, besides permitting the father to have
the custody of the child when he is in the native place.
The court also awarded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the
child.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
3. She filed another petition before the Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, claiming Rs.75.75
lakhs under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The court passed an order
allowing her to recover Rs.36.60 lakhs. The husband and
wife challenged the said order by preferring the above
Criminal Revision Petitions.
4. As all the above matters are essentially between
the same parties and there are common issues, they were
heard together and are being disposed of together.
5. We have heard Sri.P.K.Ibrahim and Sri.Babu
Karukapadath, the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
6. As the main dispute in this matter revolves
around the claim for the return of gold ornaments and
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
money, let us first consider the case advanced by both
sides in respect of the same. For the sake of convenience,
the wife would be referred to hereinafter as the
petitioner and the husband as the respondent. The marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised
on 6.6.2010 at a five-star hotel in Ernakulam. The
engagement function was also conducted in a similar
fashion. It is contended by the petitioner that her father
spent Rs.13,30,000/- towards the expenses of the
engagement and marriage function, and as per the religious
customs prevailing in their community, such expenses are
to be borne by the husband. The father of the petitioner,
and the respondent, are Chartered Accountants. The
petitioner's father, brothers, and uncles are well settled
abroad. At the time of her marriage, she was adorned with
276 sovereign gold ornaments. Before their marriage, the
parents of the petitioner gave Rs.30,00,000/- to the
respondent. A new Honda City car was also given to him at
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
the time of the marriage. On the next day of the marriage,
when the spouses reached the matrimonial home, the
petitioner handed over 261 sovereign gold ornaments to the
mother of the respondent for safekeeping, as instructed by
the respondent and his parents. However, the respondent
and his parents later sold the gold ornaments without her
consent or knowledge, and used the amount to complete the
construction of their new house and also to purchase a
shopping complex. Similarly, the respondent sold the car
to a third person and misappropriated its price, she
alleges.
7. The petitioner further stated that in July 2010,
her father arranged a job for the respondent in Kuwait,
and both of them left for Kuwait and resided there
together with her parents. Meanwhile, the petitioner gave
birth to a baby girl on 26.03.2011. The respondent started
harassing the petitioner physically and mentally, and he
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
further neglected the basic needs of the petitioner and
their daughter. Later, he married another woman, it is
alleged.
8. The respondent and his parents denied the above
allegations. According to them, the gold ornaments were
retained by the petitioner after the marriage and no
amount was given to the respondent at the time of
marriage. The Honda City car was sold by the petitioner
and her father, and they received the entire sale price.
The respondent and his parents never demanded or received
any gold or money from the petitioner or her family. It
was the petitioner who deserted and abandoned the
respondent without any reason. At the behest of the
petitioner's father, who is a highly influential person,
the respondent and his parents were subjected to
harassment by the police, it is contended.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
9. After adverting to Exts.A1 to A25, B1 to B7, the
oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1 and RW2, the Family
Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that she
is entitled to recover 261 sovereigns of gold ornaments or
Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent. Though the court found
that the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.10 lakhs,
the actual value of the car and the half share of the
engagement and marriage expenses, the court passed a
decree for realisation of Rs.65 lakhs together with 6%
interest per annum as a consolidated amount, by relying on
Ext.A20, a compromise agreement entered into between the
uncle of the petitioner and the father of the respondent.
10. Let us first consider whether the petitioner was
able to prove that she possessed 276 sovereigns of gold
ornaments at the time of her marriage. Though the
respondent admits that the petitioner and her family are
very well-placed and affluent enough to purchase such
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
quantity of gold ornaments, he disputed this aspect.
Exts.A3 to A13 cash memos produced by the petitioner show
that she had purchased 235 sovereign gold ornaments.
Ext.A2 marriage album also shows that the petitioner was
adorned with a substantial quantity of gold ornaments at
the time of her marriage. According to the petitioner, she
purchased 250 sovereigns of gold ornaments and received
the remaining 26 sovereigns as gifts. It is customary for
close relatives to give some gold ornaments to the bride
as gift at the time of marriage. Thus, we are of the view
that it is only reasonable to infer that the petitioner
possessed nearly 275 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the
time of her marriage.
11. The next point for determination is whether the
petitioner succeeded in proving that she entrusted 261
sovereigns of gold ornaments to the mother of the
respondent. When the petitioner was examined before the
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
court as PW1, she asserted this fact. However, during
cross-examination, she stated that, after the marriage,
she returned to her father's house and went to the
matrimonial home only the next day. Exts.D1 and D2
photographs taken on the said occasion, that is, when she
visited her own house, were marked in evidence through the
petitioner. The said photographs depict only about 1/5th
of the gold ornaments worn by her at the time of her
marriage. From this, the respondent contends that even
before she reached the matrimonial home, most of her gold
ornaments were taken by her father.
12. When it was put to her that the remaining gold
ornaments were kept in her father's locker, she stated
that the remaining ornaments were taken to the matrimonial
home in jewellery boxes. But she had no such case in her
pleadings. Further, the petitioner admitted that her
father had a bank locker. She said that she did not know
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
whether the respondent or his parents had a bank locker.
It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent
was staying in a rented house at the time of their
marriage. Within a month of their marriage, the petitioner
left for Kuwait and joined her parents. Thereafter, the
petitioner and the respondent lived together with her
parents. The above facts, coupled with the commanding
position of the petitioner's father and brothers, render
the petitioner's oral testimony--that she entrusted more
than 90% of her gold ornaments to her mother-in-law on the
very next day of the marriage-- improbable. We agree with
the trial court's finding to this extent. However, it is
highly probable that at least some of her gold ornaments
were entrusted to the respondent's mother. It is not
uncommon for a bride to entrust such valuable articles to
her in-laws, both for safekeeping and as a gesture of
trust and goodwill aimed at fostering familial harmony.
Before drawing any inference as to the quantity of gold
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
ornaments that might have been entrusted to the
respondent's mother, it is necessary to consider certain
other peculiar aspects of the case, and hence, we stop
short of making any such finding at this moment.
13. The next point for determination is with respect
to the allegation that the petitioner's father had given
Rs.30 lakhs to the respondent. The trial court found that
the petitioner had succeeded in showing only that Rs.10
lakhs were entrusted to the respondent at the time of
marriage engagement. Relying on Ext.B3 e-mail purportedly
sent by the father of the petitioner, the trial court
found that the alleged entrustment of 20 lakhs is
unbelievable. Let us now consider the said issue.
14. During the cross-examination of the petitioner, a
specific question was put to her--namely, whether the
marriage proposal was first initiated on 27.08.2009. She
responded that she did not know. Subsequently, she was
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
asked whether a particular email ID belonged to her
father, to which she gave the same response. Thereafter,
Ext.B3, the email allegedly sent by her father to the
respondent's father on 27.08.2009, was shown to her, and
she was asked whether it was sent by her father. She
replied that she was not sure. Ext.B3 reads as follows:
"Ali,Shamsudeen<[email protected]>Thus,Aug 27,2009 at 11:46
AM
To:[email protected]
Dear Saleem Sahib
Thanks for the photos.
Attached pl.find the photo of my daughter Muneeba,
who is 22 yrs. of age and completed her Btech
course.
If you people are interested to further proceed in
the matter, pl inform your feedback.
Rgrds.
Shamsudeen Ali
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
Snr Internal Auditor
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation - KOC Unit.
Tel:23873620 (O)
66729119 (M)
Fax : 23980987"
It is relevant to note that when PW2, the petitioner's
father, was examined before the court, he did not dispute
ownership of the email ID in question. Although he denied
having sent the email allegedly addressed to the
respondent's father, he did not deny that the email ID
belonged to him, even when his attention was specifically
drawn to it. In the above circumstances, we find no reason
to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the respondent and
his father, RW2, that the proposal for the marriage was
initiated pursuant to Ext.B3 e-mail dated 27.08.2009. If
that be so, the trial court is correct in holding that
there was no occasion for the petitioner's father to
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
entrust any money even before the marriage proposal was
initiated. It is true that the petitioner has produced a
bank statement to show that on 29.05.2009, her father had
withdrawn ₹20.5 lakhs. However, in the above factual
circumstances, this record holds no relevance. That said,
upon consideration of the entire evidence, we find the
testimonies of PW1 and PW2 on this point to be not
trustworthy.
15. Similarly, we also find that the trial court
rightly held that the petitioner succeeded in establishing
that her father had entrusted a sum of ₹10 lakhs to the
respondent at the time of the engagement. The oral
testimony of PW2 on this aspect is clear and credible, and
the trial court rightly placed reliance on it.
16. The next issue to be determined is whether the
respondent is liable to pay or share the expenses related
to the marriage. Upon analysing the evidence of PW1, PW2,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
RW1, and RW2, we are inclined to accept the petitioner's
claim that an amount of ₹12,30,000/- was incurred towards
marriage expenses and ₹1,00,000/- for the engagement
ceremony. According to the petitioner, it is customary in
their community for the bridegroom to bear the entire
expenses of the marriage and related ceremonies. This
assertion was categorically denied by the respondent in
his written statement. However, a close examination of the
evidence adduced by RW1 and RW2 reveals that they have a
claim that they shared half of the said amount. It is
undisputed that RW2 contributed ₹50,000/- out of the
₹1,00,000/- incurred for the engagement. In the light of
the above, it is sufficient to conclude that the
respondent had, at the very least, agreed to share half of
the overall expenses. Since the respondent has failed to
establish that he contributed to the marriage expenses, he
is liable to pay half of the said expenses, as rightly
held by the trial court.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
17. The Family Court further found that the
respondent is liable to pay the value of a brand new Honda
City car, which was given to him by the petitioner's
father at the time of marriage. At the appellate stage,
the learned counsel for the respondent produced two email
communications, purportedly sent by the petitioner's
father to the respondent, and persuasively argued that
these communications clearly indicate that the sale of the
car was carried out at the insistence of the petitioner's
father. Consequently, it was contended that there was no
occasion for the respondent to receive the sale proceeds.
Though these documents were not produced during the trial,
their contents were put to PW1 and PW2 during cross-
examination. Thus, we have the benefit of considering
their text, even without admitting them in evidence at
this belated stage.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
18. We have already found the said email account
belongs to the petitioner's father, and that his denial of
the same is untenable. Indeed, the contents of the emails
reveal a firm stance taken by the petitioner's father in
relation to the sale of the car. He had insisted that the
respondent should sell the vehicle, and further asserted
that keeping it idle in India while the couple resided in
Kuwait was inadvisable. He further directed that the car
be sold to one Ashraf, a relative of the respondent.
19. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded to accept that
the respondent is absolved of the obligation to return the
value of the brand-new car merely because the sale was
initiated at the request of the petitioner's father. The
evidence on record clearly shows that the car was placed
at the disposal of the respondent, after the marriage.
Thus, it is only reasonable to infer that the respondent
received the sale proceeds when the vehicle was sold to
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
his near relative. In such circumstances, we find no
ground to interfere with the finding of the Family Court
on this issue.
20. Now we have to consider a crucial aspect in this
matter. As observed at the beginning, an agreement (Ext.
A20) was executed by the father of the respondent and the
uncle of the petitioner, at the instance of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Aluva. As per this, the parties
have agreed to settle all their disputes on payment of
Rs.65 lakhs by the respondent. One of the most important
terms of the said agreement reads that the amount agreed
to be repaid (Rs.65 lakhs) by the respondent is to
compensate everything, including the rightful share given
to the petitioner at the time of her marriage. The
agreement further states that the custody of the daughter
would be retained by the petitioner and she would be sent
with the respondent for at least 15 days in every six
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
months. It is also agreed to separate the marital tie by
following the Islamic Sharia law, while withdrawing all
cases instituted by both sides. Thus, the agreement, if
enforceable, covers the claim for money, gold ornaments
and all other valuables brought by the petitioner.
21. Let us now consider the question of the validity
of Ext. A20. According to the petitioner, irrespective of
Ext. A20, she is entitled to recover whatever amount is
actually due to her, as she is not a signatory to the
agreement. However, she contends that the respondent is,
at the very least, bound by the admissions contained
therein. Conversely, the respondent challenges the
validity of Ext. A20, asserting that it was not executed
voluntarily by his father. He claims that the agreement
was signed under compulsion, alleging that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, at whose instance the agreement
was drawn up, exerted undue influence, threats, and
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
coercion upon his father to secure the execution of the
document.
22. Upon perusing the deposition of the respondent,
we find no merit in the stance taken by him. In M.C. No.
4/2013, which was filed by the petitioner under Section 3
of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986, the respondent had given evidence before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This statement was
marked in the present case as Ext. A21, during his cross-
examination. In that statement, he clearly acknowledged
that his father and the petitioner's uncle had executed an
agreement (Ext. A20), and that his father had agreed, on
his behalf, to pay Rs. 65 lakhs to the petitioner. When
specifically asked whether the agreement was executed
solely on behalf of his father or also on his own, he
categorically affirmed it was on his behalf. He also
stated that the agreed amount had not been paid only
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
because the petitioner's father did not accept the
agreement. These admissions clearly show that the
respondent had no doubt about the validity of the
agreement at least until he made the statement before the
Magistrate. When confronted with Ext. A21 former
statement, he admitted of having made such a statement.
23. When it was put to him that he had not raised any
objection to Ext.A20 agreement even during his examination
before the said court, he attempted to explain that, since
the agreement was executed at a police station, he
believed it lacked legal validity, and therefore thought
it unnecessary to express any objection in a proceeding
instituted for a different purpose. This explanation is
clearly inconsistent with his earlier stance, where he
went to the extent of asserting that the agreement had
been executed on his behalf and that he was willing to pay
the agreed amount, provided the petitioner had
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
co-operated. Thus, we find no bonafides in the defence
raised by the respondent against Ext.A20. His subsequent
explanation is clearly an afterthought.
24. The trial court decreed the matter by relying on
Ext. A20, noting the influential public position held by
the respondent's father at the time of its execution.
Admittedly, RW2 was then a leader of one of the ruling
political parties and maintained close connections with
the local MLA and other influential figures. As rightly
observed by the Family Court, a person of such stature
would not have remained passive if he had been coerced
into signing the agreement. We fully concur with this
finding. The respondent raised objections to Ext. A20 for
the first time only during the trial of the present case.
Even when Ext. A20 was put to him during his examination
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, he did
not raise any protest regarding its validity.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
25. Thus, we find that the respondent is bound to act
upon the agreement. The mere fact that it was executed at
the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police does
not render it invalid. It may not be the place at which
the agreement was executed that makes it valid or
enforceable; it is the element of free will upon which it
was endorsed that is the decisive factor.
26. Though the trial court found that the entrustment
of gold ornaments to the respondent's mother was not
established, we have arrived at a different conclusion
based on the circumstances discussed. Admittedly, the
precise quantity of gold so entrusted remains uncertain.
In matters arising from intimate family dealings, courts
are often required to draw reasonable inferences from the
available material. In this case, however, the evidentiary
footing is relatively stronger, as we have already found
Ext. A20 to be valid and binding on the respondent.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
27. While the petitioner disputes the finality of
Ext. A20, her contention is that the respondent's
liability exceeds what is stated therein--not that the
obligations under the agreement are invalid. The
respondent, in his earlier deposition admitted that the
agreed amount was not paid solely because the petitioner's
father did not accept the terms. Although the petitioner
could not convincingly establish that the entire gold was
entrusted to the respondent's mother, the existence of
some entrustment is evident from Ext. A20, which was
executed by the respondent's father on his behalf. Though
the petitioner claims that the agreement is not binding on
her as she did not sign it, it is evident from all the
attending circumstances that it was executed by her uncle
as authorised by her. Thus, let us now consider whether
there are any indications in the materials on record as to
the extent of the gold ornaments which is accounted for in
the agreement.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
28. We have found that the petitioner is
entitled to get the amount entrusted with the respondent
at the time of engagement, the price of the car and half
of the amount spent for the marriage expenses. It comes
around Rs.26,15,000/- (Rs.10 lakhs + Rs.10 lakhs +
Rs.6,15,000/-). When the father of the petitioner was
cross-examined before the court, he said that the value of
the gold ornaments sought to be recovered from the
respondent would come approximately Rs.62 lakhs. It is
clear from his statement that he is referring to 261
sovereigns of gold ornaments. We have earlier concluded
that the petitioner failed to show that she entrusted 261
sovereigns of gold ornaments with the respondent or his
family members. We already found that Ext. A20 covers the
claims for money, gold ornaments and all other valuables
brought by the petitioner. It certainly covers the value
of the gold ornaments entrusted to the mother. Though the
exact quantity is thus immaterial, there are some
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
indications even about it. The agreed amount, after
deducting Rs.26.15 lakhs, accounts for gold ornaments
worth Rs.38.85 lakhs (65 lakhs - 26.15 lakhs). This
represents about 65% of the gold ornaments claimed, even
as per the valuation of the respondent's father. The
decreed amount is thus fair and reasonable. Therefore, no
interference is warranted with the findings of the trial
court. In view of the above findings, the appeals
preferred against the said judgment are only to be
dismissed.
29. In M.C. No. 113/2013, the petitioner sought
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for herself and her minor child. She asserted
that she and the child had been living separately from the
respondent since 18.11.2012 and that the respondent had
neglected to provide for their maintenance. The petitioner
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
claimed that she was unemployed and lacked independent
means to support herself and the child. Accordingly, she
sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 for herself and
₹10,000 for the child. In response, the respondent
contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any
maintenance, having voluntarily deserted him without
reasonable or justifiable cause. He further argued that
the petitioner, being well-educated and hailing from a
wealthy and affluent family, was capable of supporting
herself, and that the maintenance claim was therefore
unsustainable.
30. The trial court partly allowed the petition. It
was found that the petitioner had subsequently secured
employment and was capable of maintaining herself, thereby
declining her claim for maintenance. However, the court
granted maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the minor
child from the date of the petition.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
31. We have duly considered the contentions advanced
by both parties. It is evident that the petitioner belongs
to an affluent family. She remarried in February, 2022.
Additionally, the Magistrate Court has allowed her claim
under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act, 1986, for maintenance for the iddat
period and towards a reasonable and fair provision. In
these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with
the trial court's order declining maintenance to the
petitioner. We also find no merit in the respondent's
challenge to the maintenance granted to the minor child.
The child is currently studying in the 9th standard, and
the amount of ₹10,000 per month is barely reasonable and
appropriate, given the financial capacity of both parties.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court warrants no
modification.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
O.P.No.1362/2013 and 1552/2013
32. O.P. No. 1362/2013 was filed by the respondent
under Sections 7, 10, and 17 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, seeking permanent custody of the minor daughter,
Fathima Zahara, who was born on 26.03.2011 during the
subsistence of the marital relationship. It was contended
that following the dissolution of the marriage by
pronouncement of Talaq, the child remained in the custody
of the petitioner (wife), who allegedly failed to take
proper care of the child. It was further alleged that the
wife did not permit the respondent or his family members
to meet the child. O.P. No. 1552/2013 was filed by the
petitioner (wife) under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and
Wards Act, seeking her appointment as the guardian of the
minor child and for a direction entrusting her with
permanent custody.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
33. Upon evaluating the evidence adduced by both
parties, the Family Court concluded that the child was
being well cared for by the mother, as evidenced by her
strong academic performance. Nevertheless, the court
appointed the father as the legal guardian, considering
him to be the natural guardian under the personal law,
while granting permanent custody of the child to the
mother. Both parties challenge this order.
34. While considering the respective grounds of
challenge raised by both sides to the Family Court's
findings, we deemed it necessary to interact with the
minor child to ascertain her well-being and obtain her
views regarding the current custodial arrangement. During
the interaction, we observed that the child is well looked
after by the mother and that she expressed complete
satisfaction with the existing arrangement. She also
expressed that she is happy with both her parents and
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
further affirmed her willingness to meet and visit her
father.
35. In view of the child's expressed contentment and
overall well-being under the current arrangement, we are
of the considered view that the present custodial setup
serves the best interests and welfare of the minor.
Further, the learned counsel appearing for both parties
were unable to demonstrate any illegality or impropriety
in the impugned order based on the factual matrix of the
case. Accordingly, we find no grounds to interfere with
the order passed by the Family Court. The impugned order
is therefore upheld.
36. M.C. No. 4/2013 was filed by the wife before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3 of
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
1986, seeking maintenance during the iddat period and a
reasonable and fair provision for her future. The
petitioner contended that, as a divorced Muslim woman, she
was entitled to ₹75 lakhs as reasonable and fair
provision, along with ₹75,000 as maintenance for the iddat
period. She asserted that the respondent, a Chartered
Accountant working both in India and abroad, initially
earned ₹1,50,000 per month, which later increased to
₹2,00,000 and subsequently to ₹3,00,000 plus incentives.
The respondent disputed the claim, alleging that his
actual income was around 600 Saudi Riyals per month
(approximately ₹85,000). He further contended that a
portion of his earnings was allocated toward supporting
his aged parents and his wife in a subsequent marriage.
37. Relying on Ext. A6, the salary certificate dated
05.11.2014, the trial court found that the respondent was
receiving a basic salary of 550 Kuwaiti Dinar, equivalent
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
to approximately ₹1,23,000. Considering the relevant
factors for determining a reasonable and fair provision--
such as the income and status of the parties at the time
of divorce, the age of the petitioner, and the financial
circumstances of both parties--the trial court concluded
that a monthly amount of ₹20,000 for a period of 15 years
would constitute a reasonable and fair provision for the
future of the petitioner. Consequently, it awarded a lump
sum of ₹36 lakhs, along with ₹60,000 as maintenance during
the iddat period.
38. As a general rule, the determination of a
reasonable and fair provision must take into account the
social and financial standing of both parties at the time
of divorce. In the present case, it is not in dispute that
the petitioner hails from an affluent family and the
respondent is also financially stable, working as a
Chartered Accountant in India and abroad, as evidenced by
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
Ext. P6 and the testimonies on record. While the trial
court calculated the provision based on a prospective
period of 15 years, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner remarried after 8 years and 4 months, in
February 2022. Though the entitlement to a reasonable and
fair provision under the statute is not expressly confined
to the period up to remarriage--as it is intended to secure
the future of the divorced woman--the fact of remarriage
cannot be ignored when reassessing the quantum of the
amount awarded. In hindsight, given that the petitioner
has since remarried and is presumably being cared for by
her present husband, we find it appropriate to re-fix the
amount of reasonable and fair provision at ₹20,00,000
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs), corresponding to ₹20,000 per month
for the actual period of 8 years and 4 months. No
interference is required with respect to the sum of
₹60,000 awarded as maintenance during the iddat period.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
In the result, Crl.R.P.No.1327/2019 is allowed in
part and the amount for fair and reasonable provision is
reduced to Rs.20 lakhs, instead of 36 lakhs.
Crl.R.P.No.962/2018, R.P.(FC) No.54/2020 and Mat.Appeal
Nos. 518/2019, 519/2019, 520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019,
851/2019 are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 520/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit A26 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ 1ST ACCUSED UNDER
SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
Exhibit A27 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ 2ND ACCUSED UNDER
SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
827/2014.
Exhibit A28 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ 3RD ACCUSED UNDER
SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I IN CC NO.
827/2014.
Exhibit A29 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DIARY OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, WHEREIN THE 1ST RESPONDENT
HAS WRITTEN IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING THAT
SOME OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS OF THE
APPLICANT WERE SOLD AT DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS.
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 565/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF SUMAYYA, THE
DAUGHTER OF THE DEPONENT WITH NOUSHAD
ISSUED ON 13.02.2010 BY ALUVA MUSLIM
JAMA-ATH SOLEMNIZING HER MARRIAGE AT
BRIDE'S RESIDENCE, ALUVA
Annexure-A2 TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, NAMELY 1. NIKAH
CEREMONY OF SUMAYYA WITH NOUSHAD AND
PHOTOGRAPH OF SUMAYYA WITH BRIDEGROOM
Annexure-A3 THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR GENERAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ADVANCES OF THE PERIOD FROM
01.01.2008 TO 11.06.2024 ISSUED BY
CANARA BANK, ALUVA IN RESPECT OF THE
EDUCATION LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS SANCTIONED
TO MUHAMMED SAWAD
Annexure-A4 THE MARRIAGE FUNCTION OF THE SECOND
DAUGHTER OF THIS DEPONENT WAS SOLEMNIZED
AT THE JAMIA JUMA MASJID ITSELF.
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON
11.08.2016 BY ALUVA MUSLIM JAMA-ATH
CERTIFYING THE MARRIAGE OF SAFEERA WITH
SIRAJ ON 08.07.2016
Annexure-A5 CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED ON
18.05.2015 BY THE LOCAL REGISTRAR &
SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
CERTIFYING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUHAMMAD
SAWAD.E.S. WITH NISAMOL ON 24.04.2015 AT
ALANGAD MUSLIM JUMA MASJID
Annexure-A6 TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL DATED
28.07.2010
Annexure-A7 TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE E-MAIL DATED
29.07.2010
Annexure-A8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC
NO.827/2014 DATED 24.02.2021 ACQUITTING
THE APPELLANTS
Mat.Appeal Nos.518/2019, 519/2019,
520/2019, 565/2019, 850/2019, 851/2019,
RP(FC)NO.54/2020 &
CRL.R.P.NOS.1327/2019,962/2018,
2025:KER:43120
Annexure-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.04.2013
SENT BY THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT
