Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
P.RAMACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
1 JAYASREE I. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family court's granted maintenance (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against maintenance (Para 3) |
| 3. legal principles on maintenance and dignity (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. revision outcome (Para 8) |
O R D E R
This revision is filed against the order dated
16.06.2020 in MC No. 642/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the wife and child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent is working and she is getting income and therefore, she is not entitled maintenance. This aspect is considered by the Family Court in detail and thereafter, fixed the quantum of maintenance. The Family Court granted maintenance only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- to the wife and child. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the same.
4. Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women, who are abandoned by their husbands. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [ 2014 KHC 4455 ] consid
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
