Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SHIBU.D. – Appellant
Versus
SHEEJA .S. – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 320 2017
Maintenance - Family Law - Cr.P.C. Section 125 - The court upheld the maintenance order providing support to the wife and children, affirming the husband's obligation and the reasonableness of the maintenance amount, while also confirming the condition for setting aside ex-parte orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order from the Family Court that directed him to pay maintenance to his wife and children, following an ex-parte ruling under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality in the order to pay maintenance and upheld the decision that the petitioner was legally and morally bound to provide for his family.
Issues: Whether the Family Court's order for maintenance and the condition for setting aside the ex-parte order were lawful and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal obligation of a husband to support his family, and found the maintenance amounts to be reasonable and justifiable.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
This Original Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below').
2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. The respondents filed MC No.340/2015 before the court below claiming maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. The court below passed an ex-parte order whereby the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside ex-parte order as Crl.M.P.No.145 of 2015. The court below allowed the said petition on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arrears till then.
The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.
4. I have heard both sides.
5. The status of the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner being the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is legally and morally bound to maintain them. The quantum of maintenance ordered by the court below appears to be very reasonable. I find no impropriety or illegality in the said order directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of arrears so as to set aside the ex-parte order.
Hence, this Original Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS M.C.340/2015 OF 2015 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-3-2016 IN M.C.340/2015 OF 2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.145/2016 IN M.C.340/2015 OF 2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-12-2016 CRL.M.P.145/2016 IN M.C.340/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP 199/2016 IN M.C.340/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
