Shajeed vs Rahna - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1281844
SubjectEducation
CourtKerala Orders High Court
Decided OnMar-26-2025
Case NumberRPFC/203/2015
JudgeHonourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
AppellantShajeed
RespondentRAHNA
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath wednesday, the 26th day of march 2025 / 5th chaithra, 1947 rpfc no. 203 of 2015 against the order dated 21.02.2015 in mc no.225 of 2013 of family court, nedumangad revision petitioner/respondent: shajeed, s/o. shamusdheen,house no 24 b t.c no village by advs. sri.s.rajeev sri.k.k.dheerendrakrishnan respondents/petitioners: 1 rahna, d/o.rafeeka beevi,edathara veedu,aruvikkara p.o, aruvikkara village,thiruvananthapuram 695 014 2 adil mohammed, aged 9 years s/o.shajeed (minor),represented by guardian rahna,residing at -do- 695 014 by advs. shri.ajit g anjarlekar sri.govind padmanaabhan sri.manu v. sri.g.p.shinod this rev.petition(family court) having been finally heard on 26.03.2025, the court on the same day passed the following:orderthis revision petition has been filed challenging the orderof maintenance passed by the family court, nedumangadu in a proceedings under section 125 of the cr.p.c.2. the petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and the father of the 2 nd respondent. the respondents filed m.c.no.225/2013 before the family courtclaiming maintenance. the family court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹7,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and ₹500/- to the 2nd petitioner. this revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.3. i have heard both sides.4. the marriage and paternity are not in dispute. the petitioner does not have a case that the 1 st respondent hasany job or source of income. admittedly, the petitioner is working in saudi arabia as a driver. the petitioner has produced ext.r5 to show that he was drawing only 600 saudi riyals per month from his job. but it has not been properly proved in evidence. considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the family court appears to be absolutely reasonable. i find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. hence, the revision petition is dismissed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge kp
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 203 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2015 IN MC NO.225 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SHAJEED, S/O. SHAMUSDHEEN,HOUSE NO 24 B T.C NO VILLAGE BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAHNA, D/O.RAFEEKA BEEVI,EDATHARA VEEDU,ARUVIKKARA P.O, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014 2 ADIL MOHAMMED, AGED 9 YEARS S/O.SHAJEED (MINOR),REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN RAHNA,RESIDING AT -DO- 695 014 BY ADVS. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.MANU V. SRI.G.P.SHINOD THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order

of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Nedumangadu in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and the father of the 2 nd respondent. The respondents filed M.C.No.225/2013 before the Family Court

claiming maintenance. The Family Court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹7,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and ₹500/- to the 2nd petitioner. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner does not have a case that the 1 st respondent has

any job or source of income. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Saudi Arabia as a driver. The petitioner has produced Ext.R5 to show that he was drawing only 600 Saudi Riyals per month from his job. But it has not been properly proved in evidence. Considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp