Shajeed vs Rahna

Shajeed vs RAHNA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 26, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1281844

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1281844
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 26, 2025
Case Number: RPFC/203/2015
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shajeed

Respondent

RAHNA

Excerpt

.....no village by advs. sri.s.rajeev sri.k.k.dheerendrakrishnan respondents/petitioners: 1 rahna, d/o.rafeeka beevi,edathara veedu,aruvikkara p.o, aruvikkara village,thiruvananthapuram 695 014 2 adil mohammed, aged 9 years s/o.shajeed (minor),represented by guardian rahna,residing at -do- 695 014 by advs. shri.ajit g anjarlekar sri.govind padmanaabhan sri.manu v. sri.g.p.shinod this rev.petition(family court) having been finally heard on 26.03.2025, the court on the same day passed the following:orderthis revision petition has been filed challenging the orderof maintenance passed by the family court, nedumangadu in a proceedings under section 125 of the cr.p.c.2. the petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and the father of the 2 nd respondent. the respondents filed m.c.no.225/2013 before the family courtclaiming maintenance. the family court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹7,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and ₹500/- to the 2nd petitioner. this revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.3. i have heard both sides.4. the marriage and paternity are not in dispute. the petitioner does not have a case that the 1 st respondent hasany job or source of income. admittedly, the petitioner is working in saudi arabia as a driver. the petitioner has produced ext.r5 to show that he was drawing only 600 saudi riyals per month from his job. but it has not been properly proved in evidence. considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the family court appears to be absolutely reasonable. i find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. hence, the revision petition is dismissed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge kp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 203 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2015 IN MC NO.225 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SHAJEED, S/O. SHAMUSDHEEN,HOUSE NO 24 B T.C NO VILLAGE BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAHNA, D/O.RAFEEKA BEEVI,EDATHARA VEEDU,ARUVIKKARA P.O, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014 2 ADIL MOHAMMED, AGED 9 YEARS S/O.SHAJEED (MINOR),REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN RAHNA,RESIDING AT -DO- 695 014 BY ADVS. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.MANU V. SRI.G.P.SHINOD THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order

of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Nedumangadu in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and the father of the 2 nd respondent. The respondents filed M.C.No.225/2013 before the Family Court

claiming maintenance. The Family Court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹7,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and ₹500/- to the 2nd petitioner. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner does not have a case that the 1 st respondent has

any job or source of income. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Saudi Arabia as a driver. The petitioner has produced Ext.R5 to show that he was drawing only 600 Saudi Riyals per month from his job. But it has not been properly proved in evidence. Considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2025 Same Parties Shajeed vs RAHNA Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath