Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SAFEER – Appellant
Versus
SUMAYYA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relation to respondents and maintenance claims. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's direction for expediting maintenance petition resolutions. (Para 2) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondents filed CMP No.163/2020 in MC No.204/2016 for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. It was allowed ex parte and the petitioner was directed to pay interim monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to the second respondent. The petitioner filed Exts.P6 and P7 petitions to set aside the ex parte order as well as to condone the delay. Those petitions are still pending. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed execution petition as CMP No.212/2024 and Ext.P5 warrant was issued. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. As per the interim direction of this Court, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and thirty six thousand only).
Having heard both sides, this original petition is disposed of as follows:
i) The Family Court is directed to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 petitions in accordance with law after hearing both
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
