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) 57913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHIBU – Appellant
Versus
MARY – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 879 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.S.RAJANI

The court upheld the interim maintenance amount granted by the Family Court as reasonable based on the respondent's age and petitioner’s financial means.

Headnote:This Original Petition is filed against the interim order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 144 BNSS. The respondent, aged 75, claims Rs.38,500/- maintenance; the Family Court awarded Rs.15,000/-. The Court finds the amount reasonable and dismisses the petition. The main issues include determining the adequacy of maintenance, emphasizing petitioner’s income. The Court held the impugned order to be legal and proper. Thus, the petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge against interim maintenance order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observation on maintenance amount and dismissal of petition. (Para 5)

J U D G M E N T

This Original Petition has been filed challenging the interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Thrissur 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 son of the respondent. The respondent claimed interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.38,500/-. The Family Court granted only Rs.15,000/- as interim monthly maintenance.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The maternity is not in dispute. The respondent is aged 75 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has an income. In paragraph 8 of Ext.P2, the petitioner admitted that he has filed an income tax return showing his annual income as Rs.4,78,200/-.

5. 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, if not inadequate. 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