Dismissed

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham v. Anju Antony

Kerala HC25 Oct 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges an appellate order granting maintenance to three children. The High Court found no illegality in the quantum fixed by the Appellate Court and dismissed the revision, directing the trial court to dispose of the pending maintenance claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

This Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the Main Court Proceeding (M.C.) within six months.

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham Vs Anju Antony — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 254 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2022 IN CRA 214/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VI, ERNAKULAM IN CMP.NO.1042/2020 IN MC 32/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

¶7

FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

DR.WESLEY K. ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS S/O V. K ABRAHAM, FLAT NO. 3D, 1ST BLOCK, MATHER ORCHAD, VIDYA NAGAR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM-682020.

¶10

BY ADVS. S.SREEDEV ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE SUZANNE KURIAN CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 ANJU ANTONY, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.WESLY K. ABRAHAM & D/O. J. ANTONY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682006.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶14

CRL.REV.PET NO. 254 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶17

BY ADVS. REJI GEORGE GEORGE SAISANKAR.S(K/002188/2021) VARNA MANOJ(K/552/2016) JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL(K/307/1995) SRI.G.SUDHEER, P.P

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

CRL.REV.PET NO. 254 OF 2022

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Crl.R.P. has been preferred challenging the

¶23

judgment dated 25.01.2022 in Crl.A.No.214 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam.

¶24

The revision petitioner is the husband. The 1^st respondent is his wife.

¶25

The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the D.V. Act') claiming various reliefs. She also moved an application for interim maintenance under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. In appeal, the Appellate Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for three children together. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶26

I have heard Shri.S.Sreedev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Reji George, the learned counsel

¶27

¶28

CRL.REV.PET NO. 254 OF 2022

¶29

for the 1^st respondent and Shri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The paternity of the children is not in dispute. The petitioner is a Dentist. The petitioner being the father of the children is legally and morally bound to maintain his children. The only dispute raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding quantum. It is submitted that the petitioner has now been ousted

¶31

from the Clinic and he does not have any income. All these matters can be decided in the M.C itself after adducing evidence. All children are students. The quantum was fixed by the Appellate Court taking into account the requirement of the children and the means of the revision petitioner. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Appellate Court directing the petitioner to pay monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- each to his three children.

¶32

Hence, this Crl. Revision Petition is dismissed. The

¶33

CRL.REV.PET NO. 254 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of M.C. itself as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶37

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham v. Anju Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham v. Anju Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

x Vs the State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Chempakakutty Vs Rethikamani

Varghese Thankan Vs State of Kerala

Noyal John Fernandas Vs State of Kerala