Rajeesh. U vs Jithina Raj

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 23, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1315513

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/1315513
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: May 23, 2024
Case Number: RPFC/506/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeesh. U

Respondent

Jithina Raj

Excerpt

.....petitioner: rajeesh. u, aged 30 years, s/o unnikrishnan, krishna bhavan, kaithamukku, thiruvananthapuram, pin - 695024 by advs. r.s.kalkura m.s.kalesh harish gopinath h.kiran p.i.najumal hussain neenu vimalkumar silpa s. respondents/petitioners: 1 jithina raj, d/o girijakumari, 2 thryambika.j.r, d/o jithina raj, this rev.petition(family court) having come up for hearing on 23.05.2024, the court on the same day passed the following: crl.m.a.no.1 of 2023 2orderthe husband came up against the order of maintenance to the wife at the rate of rs.10,000/- per month and rs.6,000/- per month to the minor child on the ground that he has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount at the rate ordered by the family court. it is now settled that both the wife and the children are entitled to a decent and dignified living and the husband is bound to maintain them. they shall not be treated as at the mercy of the husband for maintenance and it is their valuable right. the amount ordered by the family court comes to an amount of rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and rs.6,000/- per month to the child, the bare minimum required to maintain their life. the contention raised by the petitioner that he is getting only a small amount by way of income cannot be accepted since there is no direct evidence in that behalf. he did not mount on the box to give any direct evidence or to testify his crl.m.a.no.1 of 2023 3 contention by cross examination, but kept away from the family court without giving any direct evidence. as such, there is no merits in the revision. hence, there is no occasion for condoning the delay and the delay condonation application (crl.m.a.no.1/2023) will stand dismissed. rpfc will stand dismissed in limine. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946 RPFC NO. 506 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 IN MC NO.85 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: RAJEESH. U, AGED 30 YEARS, S/o UNNIKRISHNAN, KRISHNA BHAVAN, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024 BY ADVS. R.S.KALKURA M.S.KALESH HARISH GOPINATH H.KIRAN P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN NEENU VIMALKUMAR SILPA S. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JITHINA RAJ, D/o GIRIJAKUMARI, 2 THRYAMBIKA.J.R, D/o JITHINA RAJ, THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 2

ORDER

The husband came up against the order of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per month to the minor child on the ground that he has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount at the rate ordered by the Family Court. It is now settled that both the wife and the children are entitled to a decent and dignified living and the husband is bound to maintain them. They shall not be treated as at the mercy of the husband for maintenance and it is their valuable right. The amount ordered by the Family Court comes to an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6,000/- per month to the child, the bare minimum required to maintain their life. The contention raised by the petitioner that he is getting only a small amount by way of income cannot be accepted since there is no direct evidence in that behalf. He did not mount on the box to give any direct evidence or to testify his Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 3 contention by cross examination, but kept away from the Family Court without giving any direct evidence. As such, there is no merits in the revision. Hence, there is no occasion for condoning the delay and the delay condonation application (Crl.M.A.No.1/2023) will stand dismissed. RPFC will stand dismissed in limine. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Rajeesh. U vs Jithina Raj Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan