Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
VISMAYA VINAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to interim maintenance order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court remarks over insufficient consideration of submissions. (Para 4) |
| 3. order of reassessment and expediency. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P4 order whereby the learned Family Court Judge directed respondent No.2 to pay Rs.4000/- as interim maintenance.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sought interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the learned Judge did not consider the averments contained in the petition seeking interim maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though both parties submitted statements disclosing their assets and liabilities, the learned Family Court Judge did not take the same into consideration.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the amount awarded is reasonable.
5. The impugned order reads thus:-
“Heard. In view of the submission of both parties at the box Rs.4000/- as fixed as interim maintenance from 01.03.20
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
