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

2012 Supreme(Ker) 694

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Sivadasan – Appellant
Versus
E. K. Sindhu – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Babu S. Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent: ----

JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner who has finally suffered an order at the hands of the Family Court and this Court to pay maintenance to the respondent, his wife, is Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, turning down his plea that Execution Petition No.996/2010 in which Ext.P4 is passed by the Family Court is barred by limitation. The respondent remains absent notwithstanding the service of notice by this Court. Mr. K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"125(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may exte





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