Iqbal vs Rahmath

IQBAL vs Rahmath

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 26, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1480777

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/1480777
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: May 26, 2022
Case Number: RPFC/155/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

IQBAL

Respondent

Rahmath

Excerpt

.....and rs.4,500/- respectively to the first and second respondents who are the wife and the minor child of the revision petitioner.2. in the revision, the main challenge raised by the learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner was against the quantum stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of respondents 1 and 2. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the revision petitioner being a fisherman, does not have much income and that contention was taken before the family court.3. this court has directed the learned counsel to bring theobjection filed by the respondent in the m.c so as to have an idea about the manner in which the averments of the petitioner have been denied or controverted of him. admittedly revision petitioner was a fisherman and his only contention was that he is not earning income as averred by the first petitioner in the m.c. but he failed to disclosethe actual earnings of him at the relevant time. an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities as directed by the apex court in rajnesh v neha and another [2020 (6) khc 1 (sc)] was also not produced.4. he could have produced documents to establish theactual income earned by him. since he has failed to produce that, the court below has awarded monthly maintenance allowance as stated above. it is noticed that the revision petitioner is re-married. the first respondent was aged only 24 years and the child was aged 5 ½years at the time when the m.c was filed in the year 2014. the orderin the m.c was passed in the year 2021. therefore, the requirementsof both the petitioners might have been improved much at the time of passing of the order after a lapse of 7 years from the date of filing of the m.c. therefore, the family court cannot be found fault with for awarding rs.3,000/- and rs.4,500/- respectively as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of respondents 1 and 2. there is no reason to interfere with.r.p.(f.c) stands dismissed. sd/- mary joseph judge al/-.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944 RPFC NO. 155 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2021 IN MC REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: IQBAL AGED 37 YEARS S/O. IMBICHI BAVA, RESIDING AT PATHUVINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE, TANUR, OTTUPPURAM, TANUR POST, BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAHMATH AGED 32 YEARS D/O. BAVA (LATE), MOYIKKAL HOUSE, TANUR BLOCK JUNCTION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676302 2 RAFIA (MINOR) AGED 9 YEARS REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER RAHMATH, W/O. BAVA(LATE), MOYIKKAL HOUSE, TANUR BLOCK JUNCTION, THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022. This revision is filed challenging an order passed in M.C. No.223/2014 pending on the files of the Family Court, Tirur. By the

order under challenge the Family Court has directed the revision

petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,500/- respectively to the first and second respondents who are the wife and the minor child of the revision petitioner.

2. In the revision, the main challenge raised by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner was against the quantum stands ordered as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the revision petitioner being a fisherman, does not have much income and that contention was taken before the Family Court.

3. This Court has directed the learned counsel to bring the

objection filed by the respondent in the M.C so as to have an idea about the manner in which the averments of the petitioner have been denied or controverted of him. Admittedly revision petitioner was a fisherman and his only contention was that he is not earning income as averred by the first petitioner in the M.C. But he failed to disclose

the actual earnings of him at the relevant time. An affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities as directed by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1 (SC)] was also not produced.

4. He could have produced documents to establish the

actual income earned by him. Since he has failed to produce that, the court below has awarded monthly maintenance allowance as stated above. It is noticed that the revision petitioner is re-married. The first respondent was aged only 24 years and the child was aged 5 ½

years at the time when the M.C was filed in the year 2014. The order

in the M.C was passed in the year 2021. Therefore, the requirements

of both the petitioners might have been improved much at the time of passing of the order after a lapse of 7 years from the date of filing of the M.C. Therefore, the Family Court cannot be found fault with for awarding Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,500/- respectively as monthly maintenance allowance in favour of respondents 1 and 2. There is no reason to interfere with.

R.P.(F.C) stands dismissed. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/-.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties IQBAL vs Rahmath Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph