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

1992 Supreme(Mad) 412

K.M.NATARAJAN, N.ARUMUGHAM
Mahendravarman – Appellant
Versus
Ramani And Another – Respondent


Appearing Advocates: For the Appellant:A.U. Ilango, Advocate. For the Respondents:P. Khannan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

ARUMUGHAM, J.

This appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Madras in M.C. 160 of 1990 dated 16-11-1990 directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the first respondent and Rs. 100/- to the second respondent.

2. The case of the respondents who are the petitioners in M.C. 160 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras claiming maintenance from the appellant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as culled out from the petition filed in that Court are extracted in brief as follows :

The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent took place at Thiruverkadu on 30-11-1987 in accordance vedic rites and caste custom and that thereafter both the appellant and the first respondent lived together at the residence of the respondents herein for a period of 1 1/2 years. As a result of the said wedlock the second respondent was born to them and that on the date of filing of the said petition the age of the second respondent as 1 1/2 years and he is now in the custody of the first respondent. While that being so, it was alleged that the appellant
























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