Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Preventing Vagrancy and Destitution: Madras High Court Upholds Maintenance for Divorcee’s Children Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reaffirmed the essence of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing its role in preventing vagrancy and destitution. The court, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, dismissed a criminal revision petition (Crl.RC(MD)No.611 of 2023) filed by R. Ochap pan against an order granting maintenance to his children.

The petitioner, Ochappan, had challenged the maintenance awarded to his daughter, Keerthana, and his minor son. The original maintenance petition was filed by Keerthana, seeking support for herself and her brother following her parents’ divorce. The trial court initially dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, questioning Keerthana’s standing as a natural guardian for her brother. However, the decision was later overturned by a revisional court, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 5,000 to Keerthana and her brother, respectively.

In his judgment, Justice Ramakrishnan highlighted the role of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a social welfare tool, aimed at ensuring social justice to women, children, and destitute parents. “The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife,” the court observed, citing various Supreme Court decisions to reinforce its interpretation.

The High Court upheld the revisional court’s decision, stating that there was no legal impediment for Keerthana to file the maintenance petition on behalf of her minor brother. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding his salary constraints and emphasized the current cost of living in determining the maintenance amount.

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding social welfare laws and providing relief to those in distress, particularly in cases involving maintenance for children after divorce. The court’s decision is a significant step towards ensuring that children of separated parents are not left in a state of financial vulnerability.

Date of Decision: 09.01.2024

R.Ochappan VS Keerthana

 

Latest Legal News