IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
Lukman – Appellant
Versus
Nilavarneesa – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO.1168 OF 2019 | Crl.A NO.230 OF 2016 | MC NO.46 OF 2015
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the appeal based on maintenance enhancement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing of arguments from both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on maintenance amount adequacy. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court - II, Palakkad, in Crl.A.No.230 of 2016, enhancing the maintenance amount awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittoor, to the aggrieved person in M.C.No.46 of 2015, is under challenge in this revision.
2. The 1st respondent and her two daughters had approached the learned Magistrate seeking various reliefs under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act . After the evaluation of the evidence adduced through the oral testimony of the 1st respondent as PW1, and that of the petitioner herein as RW1, and also the relevant documents on record, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein. Though the aggrieved person / 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, who considered the appeal, made only the enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.4,000/- per month while allowing the appeal. Now, the revision petitioner herein would contend that the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.
4. On going through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere with the finding that the aggrieved person is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering the prevailing cost of living, price index, etc., the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Appellate Court as maintenance to the 1st respondent, cannot be said to be exorbitant or unreasonable. Needless to say, the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised to displace the findings of the Appellate Court in the above regard.
Accordingly, I find that the revision is totally unsustainable.
Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.