Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SABU M.VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
VIMALA ROSY A.A. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges family court's maintenance order. (Para 1) |
| 2. court finds no reason to interfere with maintenance order. (Para 2) |
| 3. reiterates the social justice nature of s.125. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. affirmation of family court's decision; revision petition dismissed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This revision was continuously posted before this Court on
14.07.2025, 25.07.2025, and today (06.08.2025). There is no representation for the petitioner. The impugned order is an order passed by the family court granting maintenance to the respondents. This Court perused the impugned order. As per the impugned order, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents @ Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. After going through the impugned order, I see no reason to interfere with the same. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The quantum of maintenance is also not excessive.
3. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their husbands. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [ 2014 KHC 4455 ], the Apex Court held as follows:
"3. Be
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
