Sunil Kumar vs Remya R.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 04, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1460535

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/1460535
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Apr 04, 2022
Case Number: RPFC/88/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar

Respondent

Remya R.

Excerpt

.....learned counsel was that therevision petitioner failed to file objection in the crl.m.p. but he had already filed a detailed counter statement in the m.c totally denying the claim of the respondent regarding his monthly income. according to him, contentions raised in the detailed counter statement filed in the m.c were not considered by the family court while passing the impugned order. this court has noticed from paragraph (6) of the impugned order that the family court has referred to the contention taken in the counter statement regarding the monthly income of the petitioner. in the counter statement, the revision petitioner had admitted that he is a rubber tapper. but, he has stated that due to some difficulty with his hand he is unable topursue his job as a rubber tapper. but, a medical document toestablish his inability is not produced. however, the monthly allowance for interim maintenance stands ordered by the family court is only rs.4,000/-. the amount being just and reasonable, interference with the order is uncalled for. there is no basis for the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order needs re-consideration by the family court. the revision petition fails and is dismissed.the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought forissuance of a direction to family court, kollam to dispose of m.c. no.200/2018 in a time bound manner. the m.c being pending since 2018, this court is inclined to issue a direction to family court, kollam to consider it and pass a final order after granting reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, within four months from this day.sd/- mary joseph judge al/- appendix of rpfc 88/2022 petitioner’s annexures: annexure-a a true copy of the objection filed by the petitioner in m.c.200/2018. respondent’s annexures: nil //true copy//

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 RPFC NO. 88 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2021 IN CRL.M.P.NO. REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.: SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SUNIL MANDIRAM, PLACHERY P.O., VALAKKODU, PUNALUR, PIN - 691 305. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SMT.SWAPNA VIJAYAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN M.C.: REMYA R., AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.D.SASI, MANALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKECHERRY, KANJAVELI P.O., THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 602. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2022. This revision is filed challenging an order passed by Family Court, Kollam on 06.10.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.1001/2019 in M.C No.200/2018, granting monthly allowance for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent.

2. The contention of the learned counsel was that the

revision petitioner failed to file objection in the Crl.M.P. but he had already filed a detailed counter statement in the M.C totally denying the claim of the respondent regarding his monthly income. According to him, contentions raised in the detailed counter statement filed in the M.C were not considered by the Family Court while passing the impugned order. This Court has noticed from paragraph (6) of the impugned order that the Family Court has referred to the contention taken in the counter statement regarding the monthly income of the petitioner. In the counter statement, the revision petitioner had admitted that he is a rubber tapper. But, he has stated that due to some difficulty with his hand he is unable to

pursue his job as a rubber tapper. But, a medical document to

establish his inability is not produced. However, the monthly allowance for interim maintenance stands ordered by the Family Court is only Rs.4,000/-. The amount being just and reasonable, interference with the order is uncalled for. There is no basis for the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order needs re-consideration by the Family Court. The revision petition fails and is dismissed.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for

issuance of a direction to Family Court, Kollam to dispose of M.C. No.200/2018 in a time bound manner. The M.C being pending since 2018, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to Family Court, Kollam to consider it and pass a final order after granting reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, within four months from this day.

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/- APPENDIX OF RPFC 88/2022 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C.200/2018. RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY//

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2022 Same Parties Sunil Kumar vs Remya R. Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph