TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

“An Able-Bodied Person is Bound to Maintain His Wife and Children”: Kerala High Court Dismisses Revision Petition on Maintenance Allowance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s decision to award maintenance allowance to a wife and her two minor children.

The case had caught attention due to the contradictory claims made by both parties about their financial status and employability. The Court observed, “On a consideration of the status, qualification and the fact that the revision petitioner was a heavy vehicle driver working in Oman and that the respondents have no proven means to maintain themselves, I am definitely of the view that the Family Court has rightly fixed the quantum of maintenance.”

The revision petitioner had questioned the legality and correctness of the Family Court’s decision, alleging that his wife had sufficient means to support herself and their children. However, the High Court held that there was “no material on record to prove that he has taken any effort to resume cohabitation or initiate proceedings to seek for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.”

The Court further emphasized that it is “trite law that an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and children,” citing the case of Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg.

In the judgment, Justice Dias remarked, “I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the discretionary powers.”

The revision petition was therefore dismissed, with directions for the adjustment of any interim maintenance amounts that may have been deposited by the revision petitioner.

This case sets a precedent for maintenance disputes, reinforcing that claims for maintenance are to be scrutinized carefully, taking into account the financial status and responsibilities of both parties involved.

The case was represented by Sri. Latheesh Sebastian for the revision petitioner and Sri. M. Abdul Rasheed for the respondents.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2023

SUNI VS SANDHYAMOL

 

Latest Legal News