Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.P.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN versus POTTAYIL RADHA, AGED YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.P.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN v. POTTAYIL RADHA, AGED YEARS - WP(C) No. 31763 of 2005(F) [2006] RD-KL 2398 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31763 of 2005(F)

1. K.P.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. POTTAYIL RADHA, AGED YEARS,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :04/12/2006

O R D E R

M. RAMACHANDRAN & A.K. BASHEER, JJ.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).NO.31763 OF 2005-F
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006.



JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 along with her two children had filed an application against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The court below had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- each per month to respondent No.1 and the two children from the date of petition which was filed in 1994. The above order was ultimately confirmed by this court in the common order passed in Crl.M.C.No.5336/2000 and Crl.R.P.No.646/2000, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1. When the petitioner had committed default in payment of arrears of maintenance after passing of Ext.P1 order, respondent No.1 had initiated execution proceedings before the Family Court, Malappuram. During the course of the above proceedings, the Family Court had passed Ext.P7 order by which it was directed that Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner be attached. The above order is under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. When this writ petition came up for admission on November 14, 2005, this court had granted stay of all further execution proceedings on Wpc 31763/2005 2 condition that the petitioner deposit Rs.2,000/- every month before the trial court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above direction is being complied with . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, we do not deem it necessary to keep this writ petition pending on the file this court any more. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the court below and seek appropriate modification of the order passed by it (Ext.P7), if so warranted. The court below shall pass orders in the matter after hearing the parties. The writ petition is closed with the above observations.

(M.Ramachandran, Judge.)

(A.K. Basheer, Judge.)

kav/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.