The High Court set aside the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 19.3.2011, which was granted without an application from the respondent, relying on a settled position under S. 125 CrPC. The court allowed the petition.
Original Petition allowed; interim maintenance order dated 19.3.2011 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2012/31ST JYAISHTA 1934
OP (FC).No. 1488 of 2011 (R)
MC.413/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER:
ABDUL RAHIM M., S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, PARANKIMAVILA HOUSE (P.V.HOUSE), KANYAKULANGARA VENBAYAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH
RESPONDENT:
NEJUMU KABEER, W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, HOUSE NO.C-19/140(2), NEAR DARUSALEM MASJID (JAMA-ATH-ISLAMI MASJID), THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. ALUVA-6. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ BY ADV. SRI.V.C.SARATH
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
O.P.(F.C.) NO.1488 OF 2011 R
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The respondent filed M.C.No.413 of 2010 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court passed an interim order dated 19.3.2011 granting interim maintenance to the respondent. The order dated 19.3.2011 is under challenge in this Original Petition.
O.P.(F.C.) NO.1488 OF 2011 R
:: 2 ::
would not be entitled to file an application for interim maintenance. That right is not taken away by setting aside the order dated 19.3.2011.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the interim order dated 26.5.2011, the petitioner had deposited the amount as directed to be paid by the Family Court and that in view of the setting aside of the order dated 19.3.2011, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the same. This is objected to by the respondent. In the facts and circumstances, the deposit will be subject to the final or interim orders of the Family Court.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Family Court could grant interim maintenance without a formal application after amendment of S. 125 CrPC providing provisos (2) and (3) of sub-section (1).
Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of deposits made under interim orders now set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Davis v. ThomasRelied on¶19
Davis v. Thomas (2007 (4) KLT 883)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Rahim M.
Nejumu Kabeer
K.T. Sankaran
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
