High Court Kerala High Court

Aramakkaveettil Moothedath … vs Mukkattil Asiya on 12 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Aramakkaveettil Moothedath … vs Mukkattil Asiya on 12 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 110 of 2009()


1. ARAMAKKAVEETTIL MOOTHEDATH SHAMLECK
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MUKKATTIL ASIYA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :12/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
            ======================
                 R.P.(F.C) No.110 OF 2009
            ======================
         Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010.

                         O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of

maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in

M.C.No.461/2008. The Family Court granted an order of

maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner from

the date of filing of the M.C. It is against that decision, the

husband has come up in revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

as well as the respondent. The learned counsel for the

revision petitioner wound strongly contend before me that

the Family Court was not right in fixing the maintenance at

Rs.5,000/- in the absence of materials. He had produced

along with revision some documents obtained subsequently

to prove that he was only having income of Rs.600/- Dirhams

equivalent Rs.7,500/- and therefore, the amount awarded is

exorbitant. What was the income available to him and

R.P.(F.C) No.110 OF 2009 2

whether the document relied upon by him can be accepted

are all matters which the court can consider only after

getting evidence in the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to

grant an opportunity to both sides to produce documentary

as well as oral evidence with respect to the quantum of

maintenance to be fixed in the case. Therefore, the order

under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back

to the Family Court with a direction to permit both 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. But as an interim arrangement the

revision petitioner shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs.

2,000/- per month from 1.6.2009 onwards and let the matter

be disposed of within a period of three months from the date

of first appearance of the parties before the Family Court.

The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court

on 20.4.2010.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.

mns