Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SUJIMON R. – Appellant
Versus
VIDHYA P.V. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of maintenance order under section 125 of cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel arguments presented for both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. court affirms maintenance awarded based on evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed in a proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court, Nedumangad as M.C. No.139/2018 claiming maintenance. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the second respondent. It is challenging the said order that this revision petition has been filed.
3. I have heard Adv.Liju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Adv.V.K. Hema, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner being the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent is legally and morally bound to maintain them. Admittedly, the petitioner and the first respondent are l
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
