Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 74/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/S/PETITIONER:
1 SAMEERA AGED 38 YEARS D/O BEERANKUTTY, KEEZHEDATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM POST, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676123 2 MUHAMMED SHABEEL AGED 19 YEARS, KEEZHEDATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM POST, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676123 3 FATHIMA RISHVA AGED 13 YEARS, (MINOR), KEEZHEDATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM POST, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, (3RD APPELLANT THROUGH NEXT FRIEND MOTHER/1ST APPELLANT), PIN - 676123 4 RISHONA AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT, RESIDING AT KEEZHEDATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM POST, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, (4TH APPELLANT THROUGH NEXT FRIEND MOTHER/1ST APPELLANT), PIN - 676123 BY ADVS. ALEX.M.SCARIA SARITHA THOMAS A.J.RIYAS ALEN J. CHERUVIL JOHNSON JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENT: RAFEEQ AGED 42 YEARS, S/O KALANGADAN MUHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT CHENAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU POST, POTHUVETTIPPARA, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638 ADV.P.SHAMSUDEEN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2023 The petitioners had approached the Family Court, Malappuram claiming maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each for petitioners 2 to 4. By the impugned order, the Family Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance to petitioners 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs.3,000, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500- each. The claim of the first petitioner was rejected on the assumption that she has means to maintain herself.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that absolutely no justifiable reason is stated for denying the maintenance claim of the first petitioner or granting reduced amounts to petitioners 2 to 4.
3. On careful scrutiny of the judgment, the said submission appears to be correct.
4. The claim of the first petitioner / wife is rejected
based on the following vague statement, “Considering the means of the petitioner and other attending circumstances brought out in evidence, there is no justifiable ground for
the respondent to claim separate maintenance”. The order
does not reveal the basis on which the Family Court came to the conclusion that the first petitioner has got the means to sustain herself. Even more surprisingly, the claim was denied after finding justifiable reason for the first petitioner to refuse to live with the respondent.
5. The children were aged 13, 7 and 4 years respectively at the time when the maintenance case was
filed. Relevant factors like their educational and other needs were not taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance. The direction of the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], requiring the parties to file affidavits of disclosure is also not adhered to. In such circumstances, the order cannot be sustained.
In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the
case is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration with respect to the claim for maintenance raised by the first petitioner and the entitlement of petitioners 2 to 4 for higher quantum of maintenance. Till fresh orders are passed as directed above, petitioners 2 to 4 shall be paid maintenance allowance at the rate now ordered.
The Family Court shall take earnest efforts to dispose the revision petition within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK