Abdurahiman vs Muhasina

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 30, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1298558

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/1298558
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jan 30, 2024
Case Number: RPFC/247/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdurahiman

Respondent

Muhasina

Excerpt

.....muhammed, cholakkal house, thachinganadu, nenmini, malappuram district, pin - 3 dhanish, aged 6 years - minor, s/o. abdurahiman, represented by mother - muhasina, d/o. muhammed, cholakkal house, thachinganadu, nenmini, malappuram district, pin - 679325this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 30.01.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe husband came up aggrieved by the order of maintenance granted by the family court at the rate of rs.4,500/- to the wife, the first respondent, rs.3000/- to the elder minor child, the 2 nd respondent and rs.2,500/- to the younger minor child, the 3 rd respondent. the revision petitioner remained ex parte inspite of notice at the trial court. he was employed abroad at that time. what is seen ordered by the family court is a meagre amount of rs. 4,500/-, 3000/- and 2,500/- respectively to the wife and two minor children. while taking into consideration the cost of living, the amount ordered by the family court seems to be quite insufficient to meet their requirements. as such, there is no reason to interfere with theorder of maintenance passed by the trial court. at thefag end, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he lost his job abroad. now he is jobless. in that contingency also what is seen ordered by the trial court is only bare minimum,required for their maintenance. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will clear out entire arrears within a period of three months. necessarily, there should be a direction to the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the arrears within one month from today and rest of the amount within another one month from that day. till that time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. the present revision petition will stand dismissed accordingly.sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 10TH MAGHA, 1945 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 IN C.M.P.NO.1/2020 AND C.M.P.NO.2/2020 IN MC 41/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN, NIRAVIL HOUSE, THACHINGANADAM, NENMINI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325 BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MUHASINA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, THACHINGANADU, NENMINI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325 2 ASHBRAHIMAN, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, MUHASINA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, THACHINGANADU, NENMINI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 3 DHANISH, AGED 6 YEARS - MINOR, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER - MUHASINA, D/O. MUHAMMED, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, THACHINGANADU, NENMINI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The husband came up aggrieved by the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the wife, the first respondent, Rs.3000/- to the elder minor child, the 2 nd respondent and Rs.2,500/- to the younger minor child, the 3 rd respondent. The revision petitioner remained ex parte inspite of notice at the trial court. He was employed abroad at that time. What is seen ordered by the Family Court is a meagre amount of Rs. 4,500/-, 3000/- and 2,500/- respectively to the wife and two minor children. While taking into consideration the cost of living, the amount ordered by the Family Court seems to be quite insufficient to meet their requirements. As such, there is no reason to interfere with the

order of maintenance passed by the trial court. At the

fag end, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he lost his job abroad. Now he is jobless. In that contingency also what is seen ordered by the trial court is only bare minimum,

required for their maintenance. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will clear out entire arrears within a period of three months. Necessarily, there should be a direction to the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the arrears within one month from today and rest of the amount within another one month from that day. Till that time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The present revision petition will stand dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Abdurahiman vs Muhasina Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan