Court Prioritizes Child Welfare, Directs Father to Pay Rs. 25,000 Monthly Despite Allegations of Professional Misconduct
In a significant judgment issued by the Kerala High Court, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar directed Ajmal, the petitioner, to pay interim maintenance to his minor son, despite ongoing disputes regarding the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Fathima Ajmal. The decision was reached amidst allegations of judicial impropriety and professional misconduct raised by the petitioner’s former advocate, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim.
The case arose from a petition filed by Fathima Ajmal under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs including maintenance for herself and her minor son. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court initially ordered Ajmal to pay Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 15,000 to the respondents, respectively, which was later increased to Rs. 25,000 each on appeal. Dissatisfied with the appellate decision, Ajmal filed a revision petition.
During the proceedings, the court faced allegations from the petitioner’s former advocate, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, who relinquished his vakalath, citing loss of confidence in the judicial propriety of the bench. The court, however, upheld the welfare of the minor child as a priority, given the child’s medical ailments, and mandated the father to pay Rs. 25,000 monthly maintenance to the son.
The judgment also highlighted issues of professional misconduct, as the court left it to the Bar Council and Kerala High Court Bar Association to decide on the propriety of the allegations made by Sri. P.K. Ibrahim against the court. The advocate had claimed that the court had least concern for natural justice, a statement the court found to be unjustified given the circumstances.
Justice Kumar emphasized the court's duty to deliver justice efficiently and expressed disappointment over the allegations, which were deemed serious and unfounded. The court stated that its sole objective was to ensure justice for the litigants involved, particularly focusing on the well-being of the minor child.
The case has been adjourned to January 30, 2026, allowing the petitioner time to engage new legal representation. The court's decision reflects a commitment to child welfare and underscores the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners.
Bottom Line:
Advocate relinquishing vakalath due to allegations against the court's judicial propriety and handling of a case involving maintenance for wife and minor son. The court directs interim maintenance to the minor son, despite disputes about the marriage's dissolution.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12
Ajmal v. Fathima Ajmal, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2870007
