'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable

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