Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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