Kerala High Court
C.M.Kadeeja vs B.Ali on 5 January, 2010
Author: M.N.Krishnan
Bench: M.N.Krishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 157 of 2006()
1. C.M.KADEEJA, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SAFVAN, AGED 12 YEARS, (MINOR),
3. SHUNIEF, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR),
4. SANHA, AGED 2 YEARS, (MINOR),
Vs
1. B.ALI, S/O.BAPPU HAJI,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kalpetta in M.C.166/05. The wife and three children have moved the Family Court for maintenance. The husband did not contest the case. The Court awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- each to all. It is for enhancement of that amount the wife and children have come up in revision before this Court.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the husband that subsequently petitions had been filled under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and a lump sum maintenance had been granted in favour of the wife and therefore a divorced wife after receipt of the said amount cannot be entitled to get a further amount from the Court. It is a matter that has to be looked into and after production of the judgment of that Court. So far as the children are concerned only Rs.500/- each is seen awarded and it is R.P.(F.C.) NO. 157 OF 2006 -:2:- averred in the petition that the husband is a person who is having a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- per men sum besides coffee plantation and that he has taken his second wife to the gulf country and he is residing with her there. So in order to fix an approximate quantum the Court has to enter into a finding regarding the income of the person and need of the children, their potential and the potential of the husband and only then an appropriate amount can be awarded as maintenance. So it is also a matter that requires consideration at the hands of the Court below. Therefore the order of maintenance passed is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration by permitting the husband to enter appearance and file a counter and them permit both the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 8.2.2010.
R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-