The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs. 300 to Rs. 600 under Section 127 CrPC by a Family Court, finding no legal infirmity or failure to consider the parties' capacities.
Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 300 to Rs. 600 upheld.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934
RPFC.No. 152 of 2010 ( )
MC.293/2000 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.:
HARIYARAKAKTH NOORUDHEEN,
S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, HARIYARAKAKTH VEEDU, AVIYIL KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
T. HAJIRA, D/O.USMAN, KAMBIVALAPPU HOUSE, NO.1/2316,PADINHARE AVIYIL P.O.NADAKKAVU, KALATHIKUNNU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ===========================
R.P. F.C. NO.152/2010
===========================
Dated this the 24th day of May 2012
O R D E R
The respondent in CMP. No. 551/2008 in M.C. No. 293/2000 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. The order passed by the Family Court u/s. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs. 300/-
to Rs. 600/- is under challenge.
also the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel on both sides virtually reiterated the submissions made before the Family Court.
have a case that the respondent is employed having sufficient means to maintain herself. At any rate, he has failed to prove that the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is evident from the impugned order that all the relevant aspects and like capacity of the
revision petitioner to give maintenance and the ability or otherwise of the first respondent to maintain herself etc; were duly taken note of by the Family Court while passing the order for considering the question of enhancing the monthly maintenance by invoking the power under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner has failed to bring out a case warranting exercise of revisional power by this court. I do not find any legal infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order by this court exercising the revision.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
kvr/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 600/- under Section 127 CrPC
Whether the revision petitioner established sufficient means of the respondent to prevent enhancement of maintenance
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HARIYARAKAKTH NOORUDHEEN
T. HAJIRA
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
