High Court Kerala High Court

Saidu Muhammed Pillai vs Bushara Beefam on 22 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Saidu Muhammed Pillai vs Bushara Beefam on 22 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 982 of 1998()



1. SAIDU MUHAMMED PILLAI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. BUSHARA BEEFAM
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :22/02/2008

 O R D E R
              KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

             ----------------------------------------------------------------

                             M.F.A. NO. 982 OF 1998

             ----------------------------------------------------------------


                    Dated this the  22nd day of February, 2008


                                    JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the respondent against the judgment

of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S. No.324 of 1995. The

suit was instituted by the respondent herein claiming maintenance at the

rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. The appellant was declared ex parte and the

suit was decreed. Hence, the appeal.

2. When the appeal came up for admission before this Court, the

proceedings were stayed on condition that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is

deposited by the appellant before the Family Court. It is submitted that the

amount was deposited on 3.12.1998.

3. The appellant submits that though attempt was made by him for

setting aside the ex parte order, that petition was dismissed. Be that as it

may, on going through the judgment under appeal, we find that the Family

Court has not adverted to the reasons for fixing the maintenance at

M.F.A.NO.982/1998 2

Rs.1,000/- per month. Entitlement for receiving the maintenance and

capacity to pay are two ingredients in the matter of awarding maintenance.

Apparently, capacity alone was taken note of by the Family Court. Unless,

entitlement is also established, the court below is not justified in fixing the

quantum of maintenance. Having regard to the position as above, we are

of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Family

Court.

4. Accordingly, we set aside the the judgment under appeal and

remand the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The suit

shall be disposed of within six months from the date of the judgment. It

will be open to the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited as per

the order of this Court, if not already withdrawn. The said amount will be

adjusted while disposing of the suit.

The appeal is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

sp/

M.F.A.NO.982/1998 3

KURAIN JOSEPH &

HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.J

M.F.A.NO.982/1998

JUDGMENT

22ND FEBRUARY, 2008