IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SAJIRUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
RASHIDA K.P – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. key legal principles on maintenance protection for women discussed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. decision not to interfere with the family court's ruling due to lack of merit. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
This revision is filed against the order dated 11.12.2019 in MC No.170/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the wife and child at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively invoking the powers under Sec.125 Cr.P.C.. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard.
3. This Court perused the impugned order.
Admittedly, the 1st respondent is a divorced Muslim women. Therefore, she is entitled maintenance till she obtain the benefits under Sec.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act , 1936 (for short 'Act'). The counsel for the respondents submitted that she already filed an application under Sec.3 of the Act and obtained an order. If that is the case, the petitioner need to pay the maintenance only till the order passed by the jurisdictional court invoking the powers under Sec.3 of the Act. As far as the impugned order is concerned, I see no reason to interfere with the sam
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.