Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support Medical Board Must Record Reasons Before Denying Disability Pension To Armed Forces Personnel: Kerala High Court Grants Disability Pension To Air Force Corporal 138 NI Act | Directors Cannot Be Prosecuted If Company Is Not Made Accused: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Cases Broad Daylight Removal of Goods by Known Creditors Is Not Theft: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Shopkeeper’s Insurance Claim Reservation Cannot Freeze Private Land Forever – Lapse Under Section 127 MRTP Act Operates Automatically: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Transfer On Marriage Cannot Defeat Helper’s First Right To Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Anganwadi Helper’s Promotion Where Accusations Are Prima Facie True, Statutory Bar Under Section 43D(5) UAPA Operates; Bail Cannot Be Granted: Jharkhand High Court Bomb Hurled At Head Of Victim Shows Clear Intention To Kill: Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Kannur Political Murder Case Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment

Section 125 CrPC From petition filing, maintenance must be granted- Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a petitioner under Section 125 CrPC must be granted maintenance from the date of filing the petition and not simply the date the decision was issued.

Justice A. Badharudeen expressed surprise at a Family Court's decision to grant maintenance starting from the date of the ruling rather than the date the petition was filed, and he stated that any deviation must have justifications stated in the order.

When a party requests maintenance through a petition, the party is legally required to receive support beginning on the date of the petition. Unquestionably, there may be exceptions if they are made for certain justifications that must be documented in writing. The learned Family Court Judge did not provide any justifications in the contested order for why maintenance should have been denied as of the petition date and granted as of the order date. Additionally, there was nothing on the table before this Court that would have prohibited maintenance as of the petition date. In actuality, there is no justification for maintaining the given finding. Contrarily, it is decided that refusing to grant a maintenance allowance as of the filing date of the petition without providing any justification is against the law, and as a result, the stated order may be revoked.

The court made the observations when it dealt with a petition challenging the Family Court's order on the grounds that the maintenance amount was insufficient. The petition was submitted to the family court on December 21, 2016, and the decision was made on April 6, 2019.

The wife and children of a man filed a plea under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court in Kottarakkara, demanding Rs. 8,000 for the wife and Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 5,000 for the boy and daughter, respectively, on the grounds that the petitioners had no means of support.

From the date of the decision, the Family Court awarded the mother and her daughter a monthly maintenance payment of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,500, respectively. However, the Family Court determined that there was no need to provide maintenance for the son because he had turned majority while the petition was pending.

The wife was given maintenance, which the top court declined to change. However, it increased the daughter's support and determined that the boy was also entitled to maintenance as of the petition filing date.

The third minor petitioner will receive maintenance starting on the petition date at the amount of Rs. 5,000/-. In a similar manner, the second petitioner is also entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- from the filing date until 22.7.2017, as the second petitioner reached majority on 23.7.2017, it stated.

Sreeja T. & Ors.

vs

Rajaprabha

Download Judgment

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2126000030720193-449952.pdf"]

Latest Legal News