High Court Kerala High Court

Shafeek vs Abdul Rasak on 5 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shafeek vs Abdul Rasak on 5 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 321 of 2008()


1. SHAFEEK, AGED 15 YEARS, MADATH
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAFANATH, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR),

                        Vs



1. ABDUL RASAK, AGED 48 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

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

 Dated :05/02/2010

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J
                       -------------------------
                   R.P.F.C No.321 OF 2008
                   --------------------------------
         Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010.

                         J U D G M E N T

This revision petition is preferred by petitioner’s No.4

and 5 represented by Petitioner No.3, grandmother for

maintenance against their father. The family court on

consideration of the materials granted maintenance at the rate of

Rs.750/- each per month from the date of petition and it is against

that decision the children have come up in revision for

enhancement of maintenance.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as

well as the respondent. At the outset I may like to say here is a

person who goes on marrying persons after persons and

ultimately he has got into a difficult situation by orders of various

courts regarding payment of maintenance to the children born

through different wives. This petition had been filed child in the

first wife and child in the second wife, children in the third wife.

He has already married to a fourth lady. The court below did not

R.P.F.C No.321/08 2

grant maintenance to the 1st and 2nd petitioner since they had

attained majority. It awarded maintenance to minor petitioners 4

and 5 and they were aged 13 and 15 years respectively. At the

time of filing of petition in 2008, both of them were attending

school. They are under the protection of their grandmother. The

materials when read would show that the mother of the children

is away in Gulf Country. There is no picture regarding her income

by which she can maintain the children. But there is supporting

materials available with respect to the husband for the reason

that he has admitted he has got 55.5 cents of land and that he

was a person who was taking mango gardens for lease. He would

add that on account of some heart ailment he would not continue

the same. The court below held that there is no scrap of paper

regarding heart ailment. It is also to be understood that

Mohammedan law also mandates to look after the wife properly

and the law does not support marrying persons and making them

destitutes. So it is also a matter that has to be borne in mind.

Here the person is having 55.5 cents of land and it is suggested

in the cross examination, whether it will fetch one lakh per cent.

He would say it is subject matter of litigation, but would admit in

examination final decree has been passed in the matter and some

R.P.F.C No.321/08 3

negotiations are going on. Over and above this, the available

evidences would show that he is also maintaining his fourth wife

and children which would indicate husband’s income. Children

are at higher classes ie., in the high school area and therefore

they may require better care and attention. Considering the age

also they require some nutritious food as well. Taking into

consideration this fact and also the aspect that this man has to

look after so many children, I am not ordering a very heavy

maintenance, but confining the same by enhancing the

maintenance by Rs.250/- to both the children.

3. In the result, RPFC is disposed of, modifying the order of

maintenance in favour of petitioners 4 and 5 at the rate of

Rs.1,000/- each instead of Rs.750/- each payable from the date of

petition. Grandmother is authorised to receive the amount on

behalf of the children.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

sou.