Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Aboobacker vs Raina

Aboobacker vs RAINA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 04, 2024
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1293845

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RPFC/174/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aboobacker

Respondent

RAINA

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan tuesday, the 4th day of june 2024 / 14th jyaishta, 1946 rpfc no. 174 of 2019 against the order dated 07.03.2019 in mc no.11 of 2017 of family court, kasaragod revision petitioner/respondent: aboobacker, aged 42 years, s/o pallam moidu, residing near adhur police station, adhur village and post, kasaragod taluk. by advs. m.sasindran p.k.subhash respondents/petitioners: 1 raina, aged 35 years, d/o soopi, 2 fathimath anseera, aged 16 years, 3 fathimath afreena, aged 12 years, by adv sri.s.jiji this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 04.06.2024, the court on the same day passed the following: rp (fc) no.174 of 2019 2orderthe father came up against the order of maintenance granted by the family court at the rate of rs.3250/- to the elder child and rs.2750/- to the younger child. the father is a coolie by profession. the amount ordered by the family court is found to be pittance and does not reflect the amount required for maintaining both the children by attending all their needs. the children are entitled to a decent and dignified life and the father is duty bound to maintain them by giving adequate amount to meet both the ends together. the amount ordered by the family court does not reflect the requirement and it is hardly sufficientto meet the requirements. but, no revision was filed by the guardian of minors. reserving the rp (fc) no.174 of 2019 3right of party to take up the matter under section 127 cr.p.c, the present revision petition will stand dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 RPFC NO. 174 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 IN MC NO.11 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ABOOBACKER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/o PALLAM MOIDU, RESIDING NEAR ADHUR POLICE STATION, ADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN P.K.SUBHASH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAINA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/o SOOPI, 2 FATHIMATH ANSEERA, AGED 16 YEARS, 3 FATHIMATH AFREENA, AGED 12 YEARS, BY ADV SRI.S.JIJI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP (FC) No.174 of 2019 2

ORDER

The father came up against the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.3250/- to the elder child and Rs.2750/- to the younger child. The father is a coolie by profession. The amount ordered by the Family Court is found to be pittance and does not reflect the amount required for maintaining both the children by attending all their needs. The children are entitled to a decent and dignified life and the father is duty bound to maintain them by giving adequate amount to meet both the ends together. The amount ordered by the Family Court does not reflect the requirement and it is hardly sufficient

to    meet     the       requirements.        But,   no      revision      was
filed by the guardian of minors.                             Reserving the
RP (FC) No.174 of 2019               3

right of party to take up the matter under Section 127 Cr.P.C, the present revision petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial