SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Muhammed Shabeeb vs Farsana Jibi on 11 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941

RPFC.No.401 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 191/2015 DATED 30-08-2019 OF
FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

MUHAMMED SHABEEB, S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, KALLINGAL
VEEDU, SHORNUR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKAKD
DISTRICT-679 121, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER ABDUL KHADER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALI,
KALLINGALL HOUSE, SHORNUR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKAKD DISTRICT-679 121.

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

RESPONDENT/S:

FARSANA JIBI, AGED 25 YEARS
D/O.MANAF, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA P.O.,
OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 102.

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

R.P.(F.C.) No. 401 of 2019

Dated this the 11th day of November, 2019
ORDER

The aforecaptioned revision petition is directed against the

impugned final order dated 30.8.2019 rendered by the Family Court

Ottappalam in M.C.No. 195/2015, whereby the revision petitioner

herein (respondent therein/former husband) has been directed to

pay maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent herein

(former wife).

2. In the above maintenance case, the respondent herein has

claimed that the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein)

should pay maintenance to her @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. The

abovesaid petition has been filed under Sec.125 of the SectionCr.P.C. The

Family Court after taking evidence and after hearing both sides has

found that the revision petitioner has admitted the marital

relationship with the respondent herein, but that they are living

separately from 20.8.2015 and husband (RW2) has admitted that he

has not paid maintenance to the respondent herein after 20.8.2015.

Further, the revision petitioner/former husband has contended that

the wife is working as a floor manager in Kavitha Jewellery,
RPFC 401/19 – : 3 :-

Ottappalam, and drawing salary of more than Rs. 7000/- per month

and she is also taking tuition classes, whereby earning Rs. 3,000/-

per month and that she is perfectly capable of taking care of her

financial needs and necessities and hence she is not entitled for the

grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The Family Court found that the husband has subjected

the wife to cruelty in the matrimonial house and a criminal case is

pending against the husband for offence under Sec.498A of the SectionI.P.C.

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Ottappalam. On an

overall assessment of the factual scenario, the Family Court has held

that the case of the wife that she was not in a position to live in a

peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial house, etc. was found to be

plausible and the court has held that the wife has justification to live

apart from the revision petitioner. Further the wife (P.W-1) has

deposed that she has no job or income and since the husband is not

paying any maintenance, she has to fully depend on her parents. The

manager of the Kavitha Jewellery was examined as RW1 and he has

stated that P.W-1 has worked as a floor receptionist in Kavitha

Jewellery for a limited period from 15.9.2015 to December 2015 and

she was paid an amount at the range of Rs. 7,525/- to Rs. 8293/- and
RPFC 401/19 – : 4 :-

that she resigned her job in December 2015. Exts.B-1 to B-3 are the

documents in that regard. Further the P.W-1 (wife) has also admitted

at the time of filing of the M.C., she has worked as an Accountant

Trainee for a period two months in Kavitha Jewellery. Ext.B-2(c)

attendance register of the abovesaid jewellery has disclosed that

P.W-1 has attended or worked at the said office only on the first and

second day of 2015 and that it was found that thereafter, the wife is

not having any income to maintain herself. The husband has not led

any evidence to show that the wife is gainfully employed and that she

has income, etc.

4. As regards the income of the husband, the wife has alleged

that the husband is working as a Luggage Scanning Section Head in

airport Abudabi and getting rupees one lakh per month. The husband

(RW2) has denied his job and income and according to him, he is

working as a porter at Dubai airport service and is getting only

amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month and he has produced Ext. A-9

marriage certificate, in which the occupation of RW-2 (husband) is

shown as Baggage Supervisor. When RW 2 was cross-examined

regarding his job shown in Ext. A9, he has deposed that the form for

registration of Ext.A9 marriage certificate was furnished by his father.

RPFC 401/19 – : 5 :-

The husband has also placed reliance on his passport to contend that

he is only working as a porter in Dubai airport service. In Ext.B9 it is

stated that RW2 (husband) is working as a cleaning worker and in

Ext. B-10 dated 14.4.2019 it is stated that he is working as a Loader

and his total salary is 2572 AED, ie. equivalent to approximate Rs.

20,000/-. On the basis of these materials, the Family Court has

taken the view that the husband is working as a porter and getting

about Rs. 20,000/- per month. Further it has also come out in

evidence that the father of RW-2 is doing business and another

brother is working abroad and hence Family Court held that the

revision petitioner has no liability to look after the other members of

the family. Taking into account the present cost of living and

standard of life of the parties and income, the Family Court has found

that the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at least @ Rs.

4,000/- per month from the date of filing (14.12.2015) onwards.

5. The abovesaid findings made by the Family Court are on

the basis of the evidence on record and after due appreciation of

evidence and after hearing both sides. The said view taken by the

Family Court cannot be said to be palpably perverse, unreasonable or

illegal. Hence the revision petitioner has not disclosed any cogent
RPFC 401/19 – : 6 :-

ground for revisional interdiction in this case. However, in the

interest of justice it is ordered that the revision petitioner is granted

two months’ time for clearing all the unpaid arrears, which the

petitioner will deposit before the Family Court within the said time

limit, upon which the Family Court will release the said amount to

the respondent herein. Consequently, it is ordered in the interest of

justice that coercive steps for execution of the impugned order passed

by the Family Court will be kept in abeyance for the abovesaid period

of two months. However, it is made clear that filing of execution

petition and consideration of the same is not in any manner barred

and all what is now ordered to be kept in abeyance is only the actual

initiation of the coercive steps for execution of the impugned order.

The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Family

Court, Ottappalam, who dealt with M.C.No. 195/2015 and to the

respondent herein for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above revision

petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation