The Kerala High Court modified the maintenance order passed by the Family Court and opined that the party must be allowed maintenance from the date of the petition onwards as sanctioned by law. There can be a deviation from this only if specific reasons are recorded in writing.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners are the wife and children of the Respondent who filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr. P.C”). The maintenance was claimed on the ground that the Respondent works abroad, and Petitioner has no means to sustain herself and her children.
The present petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Family Court because the quantum of maintenance awarded was inadequate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent accused Petitioner of adultery and even denied paternity of the third child. The Respondent was not cross-examined, and it was alleged that due to the tactics of Petitioner the cross-examination got delayed.
Observations of the Court:
As for the paternity of the third child, a DNA test result was conducted, and it was found that the Respondent is the child's biological father. It was observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner was living an adulterous life. Therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to maintenance.
The Bench noted that the Respondent did not even specifically deny the income as asserted by the Petitioner; hence, the Family Court order was modified.
The High Court observed that there is no reason for the Family Court to deny the maintenance to the Petitioner from the date of the petition to which they are legally entitled. The Court opined that the party must be allowed maintenance from the date of the petition onwards as sanctioned by law. There can be a deviation from this only if specific reasons are recorded in writing.
The decision of the Court:
On basis of these reasons, the order of the Family Court was set aside and modified as regards the quantum of maintenance and the date of the order of maintenance.
Case Title: Sreeja T. & Ors. V. Rajaprabha
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Case No.: RPFC No. 307 of 2019
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. K. Siju, Smt. Anjana Kannath
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Smt. T.S. Maya, Smt. C. Vijayakumari, Smt. C. Anchala
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
