Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
KUMARNARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
SUNITHA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of maintenance claim and court proceedings. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding maintenance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. discussion on maintenance laws and judicial precedent. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling indicates dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
This revision is filed against the order dated
29.05.2017 in MC No. 210/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. As per the impugned order, the Family court granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is working in KSRTC and the same is not considered by the Family Court, while deciding the matter.
The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that this point is considered by the Family Court and thereafter, the maintenance is granted.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. The contentions raised by the petitioner is already considered by the Family Court in detail in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment
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
