SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 251

PAREED PILLAY
DAMODARAN – Appellant
Versus
MEERA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The revision petitioner challenges the order of the Sub Court, Trichur in I.A. No. 1359 of 1985 in H.M.O.P. 28 of 1985. The respondent (wife) filed the petition claiming ad-interim maintenance for herself and her two children and also litigation expenses from her husband. The learned Sub Judge allowed that application and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per mensem as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 75/-per mensem each to his two children. He was also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards the litigation expenses.

2. The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.28 of 1985 under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. Admittedly they have two children. The respondent filed I.A. 1359 of 1985 under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 1,300/- per month for herself and her two children and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the children are not entitled to get ad-interim maintenance in a petition filed under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is argued that a plain reading of S.24 of the Act would clearly show that wife










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top