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.

Anitha vs Damodaran

Anitha vs Damodaran

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 26, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1353619

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Mat.Appeal/126/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anitha

Respondent

Damodaran

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice a.muhamed mustaque & the honourable mrs. justice sophy thomas monday, the 26th day of june 2023 / 5th ashadha, 1945 mat.appeal no.126 of 2014 against the decree and judgment dated 31.10.2013 in o.p.no.522/2012 of family court, thalassery ------ appellants/counter petitioners: 1 anitha, aged 52 years, w/o.ramadas, residing at chenecheri house, elayavoor amsom, chala desom, p.o.chala east, chala, kannur district. 2 aneesh, aged 44 years, s/o.damodaran, residing at soumya nivas, edakkad amsom, chirakku tazhe desom, p.o.kizhunna, kannur taluk and district. sri.c.p.peethambaran smt.mini.v.a. respondent/petitioner: damodaran, aged 80 years, s/o.pokkan, residing at punjayan house, puzhathi amsom, desom, p.o.kottali, t.c.mukku, kannur district. smt.m.v.asha bindu sri.c.m.nazar this matrimonial appeal having been finally heard on 26.06.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: mat.appeal no.126/2014 2judgmenta.muhamed mustaque, j.this appeal is at the instance of the respondents in o.p.no.522/2012 on the file of the family court, thalassery. 80 years old father approached the family court for maintenance. a separate claim was also laid for past maintenance. the family court allowed the claim for past maintenance at the rate of rs.12,000/- and rs.18,000/- from his daughter and son. challenging the same, they have come up with this appeal. having considered the fact that we find no reason to interfere in this appeal inasmuch as the amount awarded is very modest and law, the appeal is dismissed. a.muhamed mustaque, judge sophy thomas, judge ln

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO.126 OF 2014 AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2013 IN O.P.NO.522/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY ------ APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: 1 ANITHA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.RAMADAS, RESIDING AT CHENECHERI HOUSE, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, CHALA DESOM, P.O.CHALA EAST, CHALA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 ANEESH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT SOUMYA NIVAS, EDAKKAD AMSOM, CHIRAKKU TAZHE DESOM, P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: DAMODARAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.POKKAN, RESIDING AT PUNJAYAN HOUSE, PUZHATHI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOTTALI, T.C.MUKKU, KANNUR DISTRICT. SMT.M.V.ASHA BINDU SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal No.126/2014 2

JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the respondents in O.P.No.522/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. 80 years old father approached the Family Court for maintenance. A separate claim was also laid for past maintenance. The Family Court allowed the claim for past maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.18,000/- from his daughter and son. Challenging the same, they have come up with this appeal. Having considered the fact that we find no reason to interfere in this appeal inasmuch as the amount awarded is very modest and law, the appeal is dismissed. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE ln

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial