SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
MIRZAD MAHDOOM – Appellant
Versus
SAFIYA NAZRIN – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 300 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.P.SAJID, K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI, SHIFA LATHEEF, P.T.SHAHUL HAMEED, MUHAMMED HAROON A.N., HASHARURAHIMAN U., MOHEMED FAVAS, SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN
For the Respondents: ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN, C.DHEERAJ RAJAN, BREEZ.M.S

Timely compliance with maintenance orders is crucial; failure results in dismissal of appeals.

Headnote:In this case, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the court evaluated an appeal regarding maintenance orders. The magistrate mandated maintenance payments, which were contested based on delay in filing. The court established that timely partial payment of arrears could assist in resolving the case. The court concluded that the petitioner must pay 50% of arrears in 15 days and maintain payments thereafter.

Table of Content
1. court evaluates maintenance order under domestic violence law. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner must settle arrears to proceed with appeal. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026)

The respondents in MC No. 21 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad who are the appellants in un-numbered criminal appeal of 2023 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad filed this OP being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 49 days in preferring the appeal.

2. The above MC was filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking various reliefs including maintenance. In addition to protection order the learned Magistrate as per the order dated 25.09.2023, directed the 1st respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.150,00/- per month to his wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred the un-numbered criminal appeal with a delay of 49 days. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the delay petition on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the delay.

3. At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is a freelance IT trainer. It is also revealed that now the maintenance ordered by the learned Magistrate and kept in arrears by the 1st petitioner will come to more than Rs. 7 lakhs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far he had paid only Rs.1,21,000/- to the respondent.

In the above circumstances, I hold that this OP(Crl)

can be allowed if the 1st petitioner is ready to pay 50% of the arrears of maintenance due to the respondent, till date, in a time bound manner. In the result, this OP(Crl) is allowed on condition that the 1st petitioner shall pay 50% of the arrears of maintenance ordered by the learned Magistrate within a period of 15 days and continue to pay maintenance at the same rate till the disposal of the OP(Crl). In case of default, this OP will stand 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