Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kausar Edappagath, J
Haseena – Appellant
Versus
Suhaib – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintenance claims must reflect the financial reality of the respondent. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. the obligation to maintain a wife remains despite second marriages. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. the husband must provide sufficient evidence to support claims of inadequate income. (Para 4 , 7) |
“CR”
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed in M.C.No.98/2015 on the files of the Family Court, Tirur dated 25.8.2022.
2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent.
Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st petitioner, born in wedlock with the respondent. The petitioners filed a maintenance case against the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- to the 1st petitioner, ₹8,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and ₹6,000/- to the 3rd petitioner. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹4,000/- to the 1st petitioner and ₹1,500/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. I have heard Sri Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even though notice has been served on the respondent, there
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
