Silpa vs Sasidharan

SILPA vs Sasidharan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 25, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1283010

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/1283010
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 25, 2025
Case Number: RPFC/520/2023
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SILPA

Respondent

Sasidharan

Excerpt

.....court) having been finally heard on 25.03.2025, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthis revision petition has been filed challenging theorder passed by the family court, mavelikara in aproceedings under section 125 of the criminal procedure code.2. the petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. the respondent filed m. c. no.121/2019 before the familycourt, mavelikara against the petitioner claiming maintenance. the family court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the respondent. the said order is under challenge in this revision petition.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.4. the respondent is aged 70 years and isadmittedly residing with his son. it is true that since the respondent does not have any income to support himself, the petitioner being the daughter is liable to maintain him provided she has sufficient means. the respondent alleged that the petitioner is running a dtp centre and earns sufficient income. however, the petitioner in the counter statement specifically contended that she has no job or income and the dtp centre is run by her husband. there is absolutely no evidence to show that the dtp centre is run by the petitioner and she is getting any income from there. there is also no other evidence to show that the petitioner has any job or any other source of income. however, the family court granted maintenance on the ground that the petitioner is healthy, sufficiently educated and is liable to maintain her father. since there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has any means to maintain the respondent, the order of maintenance passed by the family court cannot be sustained. accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.the revision petition is allowed as above. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge br appendix of rpfc 520/2023 petitioner’s annexures annexure a1.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 520 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN MC NO.121 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC: SILPA AGED 32 YEARS W/O SANTHOSH, AKSHAYA VILLA, SATHEESH BHAVANAM, MUTHUKATTUKARA, NOORANDADU P.O, PALAMEL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690504 BY ADVS. SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN D.SMITHA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN MC: SASIDHARAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, SILPA NIVAS, NOORANADU P. O, KOTTACKATTUSSERI MURI, THAMARAKULLAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 680504 BY ADVS. VISHNUDAS HARIDAS T.G.LELLULAL(K/45/1981) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the

order passed by the Family Court, Mavelikara in a

proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent filed M. C. No.121/2019 before the Family

Court, Mavelikara against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the respondent. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The respondent is aged 70 years and is

admittedly residing with his son. It is true that since the respondent does not have any income to support himself, the petitioner being the daughter is liable to maintain him provided she has sufficient means. The respondent alleged that the petitioner is running a DTP centre and earns sufficient income. However, the petitioner in the counter statement specifically contended that she has no job or income and the DTP centre is run by her husband. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the DTP centre is run by the petitioner and she is getting any income from there. There is also no other evidence to show that the petitioner has any job or any other source of income. However, the Family Court granted maintenance on the ground that the petitioner is healthy, sufficiently educated and is liable to maintain her father. Since there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has any means to maintain the respondent, the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

The Revision Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR APPENDIX OF RPFC 520/2023 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT , MAVELIKKARA IN CRL.M.P 223/2019 IN MC NO Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN MC NO. 121/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016

ISSUED BY THE MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL & SUB- DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT

Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.06.2019 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT BY FRANKLIN TEMPLETON Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY NO. T.K.M KRISHI BHAVAN, THAMARAKULAM Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY NO. P.A. 6/19-20 UNDATED ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAMEL Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY UNNUMBERED DATED 10.03.2020 ISSUED BY PALAMEL KARSHAKA SAMITHI, NURANADU Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF FARMER’S PARTY LEDGER OF THE RESPONDENT FROM 1ST APRIL 2019 TO 31ST MARCH 2020 ISSUED BY PALAMEL KARSHAKA SAMITHI, NURANADU Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2020 ISSUED BY THAMARAKULAM A GRADE VEGETABLE STAR Annexure A10 A COPY OF DETAILS CASH TRANSACTION DETAIL DATED 10.03.2020 ISSUED BY THAMARAKULAM ECHO SHOP Annexure A11 A COPY OF RESPONDENT’S DETAILS ON PUBLIC

INFORMATION ABOUT INDIRA GANDHI PENSION SCHEME DATED 31.10.2020 ISSUED BY SEVANA PENSION - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE DETAILS OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL31B7594 SHOWING IN REGISTERING AUTHORITY Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RP (FC) NO 102 OF 2023 IS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 23.05.2023 Annexure A14 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2023 IN MC NO. 121/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties SILPA vs Sasidharan Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath