The appellant husband appealed against a maintenance order obtained by the wife and children. The court rejected the assumption of remarriage due to lack of appearance and found insufficient grounds to interfere with the lower court's order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is maintained.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
F.C.A.No.146 of 2005
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)
This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2005 in M.C.No.211 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed by the respondents-wife and children under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., granting maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month each from the date of the application i.e., 23.09.2004, with a direction to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 5 herein till the date of their marriage, and to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 herein till they attain majority.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant-husband that the daughters i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 5 herein, are married and that the sons i.e., respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 herein have attained the age of majority and, as such, the claim of respondent No.1 only remains for
adjudication. It is further submitted that as there is no response from respondent No.1, it is presumed that she must have re-married and hence she is not entitled for maintenance.
3. It is true that there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. Merely because there is no appearance on her behalf, it cannot be presumed that she must have re-married, dis-entitling her for maintenance awarded by the Court below. Except the above, as no other argument is advanced on behalf of the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
___________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO 22.01.2015. Msr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
F.C.A.No.146 of 2005
22.01.2015 Msr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's maintenance order where the respondent failed to appear claiming remarriage or attainment of majority.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Husband
Wife and children
R.Subhash Reddy
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
