C K ABDULLA Vs. AYISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the order for payment of maintenance to the minor child and which was directed to be paid to the mother of the child as guardian would be satisfied, if the respondent in the maintenance petition pays the amount directly to the child on her attaining majority.

(2.) In M.C. 143/99 filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein, the Family Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month to the first respondent and Rs. 400 each, per month to the respondents 2 to 4, by order dated 12th November, 1999. Five miscellaneous petitions were filed before the Family Court for realisation of the amount of maintenance due for the period from 16.4.1999 to 6.2.2006. The writ petitioner (father of respondents 2 to 4) contended that the paid all the amounts due as per the order in the M.C. to the second respondent. Safeera, who attained majority subsequently and therefore, the miscellaneous petitions are not maintainable The writ petitioner further contended that he sent cheques to Safeera for a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000 and she cleared those cheques and appropriated the amounts. In an attempt to prove that the cheques were sent and the amounts were withdrawn from the bank, the Manager of the bank was examined as RW1 and Exts. XI and X2 were marked.

(3.) The respondents herein, on the other hand, contended that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court was not paid, as directed by the Court. Safeera was residing with her father for quite some time and she was given in marriage by the father, and her whereabouts are not known to the first respondent. The Family Court, on evidence, came to the conclusion that Safeera was residing with her father at the relevant time. The contention of the respondents is that in an attempt to defeat the order passed by the Family Court, the writ petitioner has manipulated things in such a way that the cheques were issued in favour of Safeera and the money was actually drawn by the writ petitioner.