Criminal Revision Petition No. 1017 of 2009 · Kerala High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 25 Mar 2009
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
Provisions considered
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1017 of 2009= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009ORDERPetitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent herein andfather of respondents 3 and 4 who are minor children. CMPNo.1237/2008 was an application filed by respondents 2 and 4herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha claiming interim maintenance. As per the ex parte order dated 10.9.2008the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said order was again confirmed in appeal filed as Crl. AppealNo.457 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision.2. Apart from the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order passed in M.C.No.97 of 2008 which is an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and therefore rendering this revision not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Crl.R.P.No.1017 of 20092Cr.P.C, the lower appellate court has given detailed reasons in support of its conclusion for confirming the order for maintenance. The fact that an application for maintenance ispending before the Family Court, Alappuzha, is no ground to reduce the quantum of maintenance. This revision is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given further time of one month from today to deposit the arrears of maintenance. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Mar 2009. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.