Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |    

“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

 

Similar News