Court dismissed criminal revision challenging domestic violence maintenance orders awarding amounts to wife and child, finding no error in lower courts assessing petitioner's capacity to pay.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned maintenance orders affirmed.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 29 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2013 IN CRA NO.75 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2013 IN MC NO.186 OF 2011 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
ABDUL RASHID B.A., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABDULRAHMAN, AYSHA MANZIL, BANGARAKKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.JIJI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND STATE:
1 FATHIMATH SUHAILA
AGED 20 YEARS D/O.ABDUL RAZZAQ B.M., THOUFEEQ MANZIL, KOTTAKKAL, KALANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 RUKHIYA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.ABDULRAHMAN, AYSHA MANZIL, BANGARAKKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3 RAMALA
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.SAMAD, AYSHA MANZIL, BANGARAKKUNNU, NELLIKKUNNU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2
Crl.Revision Petition No.29 of 2014
4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R4 BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.Revision Petition No.29 of 2014
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 29 of 2014
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner challenges the order directing payment of maintenance to his wife and child.
2 . The learned Magistrate in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short “the Act”), 2005 ordered him to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child. He preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, but was unsuccessful. The said concurrent finding is challenged in this revision.
3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4 . The courts below fixed the quantum of monthly
maintenance taking into account the fact that the petitioner
4
Crl.Revision Petition No.29 of 2014
has been working abroad and earning sufficient income to make such payment. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and considered the materials on record, I find no reason to hold that the said finding is either perverse or
wholly incorrect. In the said circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this revision petition. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in fixing maintenance liability given the petitioner's income abroad.
Whether the impugned order finding the petitioner liable for maintenance is perverse or wholly incorrect.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
ABDUL RASHID B.A.
FATHIMATH SUHAILA
RUKHIYA
RAMALA
STATE OF KERALA
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
