SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
NASEERA – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL RASAK – Respondent
RPFC NO. 8 OF 2022 | MC NO.1 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

Court entails that maintenance should reflect the needs of the wife and child, even considering the respondent's health and responsibilities.

Headnote:In this case, the court considered the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C regarding the enhancement of maintenance. The family court had initially awarded a monthly maintenance of ₹1,000 which was enhanced to ₹1,600. The petitioners argued that this amount was insufficient considering the respondent's health and responsibilities. The court found the previous enhancement inadequate and raised the monthly maintenance to ₹3,000, reflecting the petitioner’s needs and the circumstances of the respondent.

Table of Content
1. maintenance enhancement due to insufficient prior amount. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel's arguments considered. (Para 3)
3. court discusses the need for adequate maintenance. (Para 4)

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the wife and child in a proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Malappuram.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent.

The petitioner No.2 is the son born to the petitioner No.1 and respondent. The petitioner No.1 was granted a monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/- in M.C.No.495/2012 by the Family Court, Malappuram. Thereafter, the petitioners filed M.C.No.1/2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for enhancement of the maintenance. It was allowed as per the impugned order and the monthly maintenance amount was enhanced to ₹1,600/- from the date of the petition. The petitioners dissatisfied with the said amount ordered has approached this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no appearance for the respondent.

4. The marriage is not in dispute. In M.C.No.495/2012, ₹1,000/- was ordered as monthly maintenance on 5.11.2014. The impugned order was passed on 30.10.2021. In short, the second order was passed after a lapse of seven years and a meager amount of ₹600/- is enhanced, which is no doubt too low. However, the fact remains that the respondent is a cancer patient and his pancreas was removed. Further it has come out in evidence that after the removal of pancreas, he has contracted another marriage and two children were born in the said wedlock. Admittedly, he is maintaining his second wife and children. Therefore, the respondent cannot take up a contention that he cannot maintain his first wife. As stated already, the enhancement ordered by the Family Court is very low. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of the petitioner No.1 and the means and illness of the respondent, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court is enhanced to ₹3,000/-. The revision petition is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top