Meghana vs Ratheesh

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Nov 30, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1367699

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/1367699
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Nov 30, 2023
Case Number: RPFC/549/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Meghana

Respondent

Ratheesh

Excerpt

.....taluk. sri.b.premnath (e) respondents/petitioners:aged 29 years w/o.kanattil ratheesh, d/o.thaivalappil jayaprakash,now residing at thaivalappil house, irinjalakuda,thrissur. aged 3 years, (minor), represented by meghana (mother) 1st respondent, aged 29 years, d/o.thaivalappil jayaprakash, now residing at thaivalappil house,irinjalakkuda, thrissur. this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 30.11.2023, along with rp(fc)no.549/2017, the court on the same day delivered the following:common orderthe revision petitions are filed challenging theorder in m.c no.48/2014 of the family court,irinjalakuda, directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter @ rs.4500/- and rs.3,500/-, respectively from march, 2014 onwards.2. dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance passed by the family court, the wife and daughter have filed r.p (fc) no.549 of 2017 and aggrieved by the order, the husband has filed r.p (fc) no.318 of 2015.3. heard; sri.santhosh p.poduval, the learnedcounsel appearing for the wife and daughter/revision petitioners in r.p (fc) 549/2017 and sri.b.premnath, the learned counsel appearing for the husband/the revision petitioner in r.p (fc) no.318 of 2015.4. today when the revision petitions were takenup for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides in unison submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled out of court. therefore, the parties do not desire to prosecute the revision petition. hence, the revision petitions may be dismissed as not pressed. the said submission is recorded. resultantly, the revision petitions are dismissed as not pressed. sd/-c.s.dias ma/30.11.2023 judge

Full Judgment

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 RPFC NO. 549 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 48/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. THAIVALAPPIL JAYAPRAKASH, NOW RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA THRISSUR DISTRICT AGED 6 YEARS(MINOR)REPRESENTED BY MEGHANA (MOTHER)AGED 32 YEARS,D/O. THAIVALAPPIL JAYAPRAKASH,NOW RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA. SRI.VYSAKH VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: AGED 35 YEARS,S/O. KANATTIL RAJAN, AVITTATHUR DESOM, KADUPPASSERI VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683
SMT.V.SANDHYA VIJAYAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP(FC)318/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, RPFC NO. 318 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 48/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: AGED 32 YEARS S/O.KANATTIL RAJAN, AVITTATHUR DESOM, KADUPPASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
AGED 29 YEARS W/O.KANATTIL RATHEESH, D/O.THAIVALAPPIL JAYAPRAKASH,NOW RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR. AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MEGHANA (MOTHER) 1ST RESPONDENT, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.THAIVALAPPIL JAYAPRAKASH, NOW RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE,IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP(FC)No.549/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitions are filed challenging the

order in M.C No.48/2014 of the Family Court,

Irinjalakuda, directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter @ Rs.4500/- and Rs.3,500/-, respectively from March, 2014 onwards.

2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance passed by the Family Court, the wife and daughter have filed R.P (FC) No.549 of 2017 and aggrieved by the order, the husband has filed R.P (FC) No.318 of 2015.

3. Heard; Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, the learned

counsel appearing for the wife and daughter/revision petitioners in R.P (FC) 549/2017 and Sri.B.Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for the husband/the revision petitioner in R.P (FC) No.318 of 2015.

4. Today when the revision petitions were taken

up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides in unison submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled out of court. Therefore, the parties do not desire to prosecute the revision petition. Hence, the revision petitions may be dismissed as not pressed. The said submission is recorded. Resultantly, the revision petitions are dismissed as not pressed. Sd/-C.S.DIAS ma/30.11.2023 JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Meghana vs Ratheesh Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias