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

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Chakkingal Achuthankutty Nair – Appellant
Versus
Chakkingal Seethakutty – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr.K.T.Shyamkumar and Mr.Harish R.Menon, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr.Jamsheed Hafiz, Advocate

ORDER

C.T.Ravikumar, J.—The respondents in M.C.No.1209 of 2010 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram are the revision petitioners and the respondent herein was the petitioner therein. The respondent herein is a nonagenarian with nine children including the petitioners and she filed the M.C seeking maintenance only from the petitioners. Admittedly, she is residing with another daughter by name Rugmini.M.C.No.1209 of 2010 was filed claiming maintenance from each of the revision petitioners at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is a nonagenarian and obviously, she approached the Family Court with the averments that she got no means to sustain herself, that she is suffering from dotage and various ailments and she is not in a position to meet the expenses for her treatment on her own. Upon the rival contentions, the Family Court formulated the points as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and if so, what should be rate, for consideration. On the side of the revision petitioners/respondents therein, the first petitioner was examined as RW1. No documents were produced on







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