Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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