Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOSEPH @ MANAYI versus PUTHENPURAKKAL MONI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JOSEPH @ MANAYI v. PUTHENPURAKKAL MONI - Crl Rev Pet No. 80 of 1999 [2007] RD-KL 13113 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 80 of 1999()

1. JOSEPH @ MANAYI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PUTHENPURAKKAL MONI
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY, J.

Crl.R.P.No.80 OF 1999 Dated 16th July, 2007

ORDER

Mother of the revision petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. Allegation in the complaint was that on the death of her husband properties were partitioned to their sons. Mother's share was transferred to the revision petitioner on the belief that he will look after her, but, he is not looking after her and she is compelled to reside with her son-in-law. When the case was pending, it was agreed to pay Rs.225/= per month as maintenance to the mother. One Adv.Rajagopal signed the above as an advocate for the revision petitioner. It is his case that he has not agreed for the settlement. According to him, the signature of the advocate is that of a junior advocate and not the advocate who filed the vakalath and he is not bound by the settlement. There is a suit for partition pending as O.S.No.350/1998 at the time when the order was passed. It is submitted that the petitioner is only a manual worker and he is not bound to pay the amount as per the settlement. It is also submitted that the petitioner invited his mother several times to stay with him. If the mother is staying with him, he has to look after Crl.R.P.80/1999 2 her at her old age and her medical expenses apart from food and clothing expenses will have to be borne by him. Now the order is only to pay Rs.225/= per month as maintenance. Even without an order of the court or settlement, a son is bound to look after his mother and Rs.225/= per month ordered cannot be stated to be on the high side. Even if no property is received from the mother, considering the amount involved, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below in ordering Rs.225/= per month to the mother. Petitioner is the eldest son. It is also stated that the petitioner was getting more that Rs.4,000/= per month from the agricultural property. Whatever may be that, considering the maintenance amount ordered to be paid, I am of the opinion that there is no point to interfere with the same. The revision petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY Judge tks


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.