Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

“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