Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court

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