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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3269

K. MURALI SHANKAR
Mohamed Siddiq – Appellant
Versus
Rasheedha Begum – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:I. Abdul Basith, Advocate. For the Respondents:T. Lenin Kumar, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The simultaneous filing of maintenance cases under different acts, such as Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act, is permissible. (!) (!) (!) - There is no bar to initiating simultaneous proceedings claiming maintenance under different Acts. (!) - The court must take into account the maintenance awarded in previous proceedings when determining the payable amount in subsequent proceedings. (!) (!) - The applicant in a subsequent maintenance proceeding is duty-bound to disclose the previous maintenance proceeding and the orders passed therein. (!) (!) - The court should grant an adjustment or set-off of the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding to avoid inequity. (!) (!) - If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires modification or variation, the party must move the concerned court in the previous proceeding. (!) - The Criminal Original Petition filed to quash the maintenance case was dismissed as the objection was no longer legally available. (!) - The Family Court was directed to dispose of the pending maintenance case within two months. (!)

How to determine the payable maintenance amount when simultaneous proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act are pending?

What is the legal position regarding the permissibility of filing simultaneous maintenance cases under different acts?

What are the rights of a court regarding the disclosure of previous maintenance awards in subsequent proceedings?


JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in M.C.No.109 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records of the proceedings in M.C.No.109 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the only respondent and the first respondent herein, for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter/the second respondent herein has laid the maintenance claim in M.C.No.109 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner married the first respondent on 12.04.1999 in S.K.Mahal at T.V.S.Toll gate, Tiruchirappalli, as per the Islamic rites and customs and that due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter Hamidha Begum/second respondent and a son by name Imran Ali.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been running a chicken stall at Chennai.

5. The first respondent has raised so many allegations and charges against th

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