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) 57910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SANTHAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SAJITHA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 873 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.K.A.SUNITHA

A husband is obliged to provide maintenance to his wife, irrespective of their living arrangements.

Headnote:This Original Petition was filed to challenge an interim order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 144 of the BNSS. The petitioner, the husband, claimed that maintenance should not be granted as they reside together. The court found the interim maintenance reasonable, affirming the Family Court's order. Final outcome: original petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. interim maintenance challenges and obligations of spouses. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's claims regarding shared residence and maintenance rights. (Para 3)
3. court's determination on reasonableness of maintenance. (Para 4)

J U D G M E N T

This Original Petition has been filed challenging the interim order of maintenance passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') / Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ' BNSS ').

2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The marriage is not in dispute.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. The definite case of the respondent is that she does not have any job or source of income. The petitioner, being the legally wedded husband of the respondent, is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the petitioner and the respondent are residing under the same roof and that the petitioner is providing maintenance. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance. That is a matter which is to be decided at the time of trial.

4. Considering the requirement of the respondent and the ability and means of the petitioner, the interim monthly maintenance granted to the respondent by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

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