PALLIPPARA MEHABOOB v. PARAMMAL RAJEENA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
revision petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.R.P.F.C.NO.98 OF 2007DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2007ORDERThe petitioner is the respondent/husband in M.C.No.45/2006who has been ordered to pay maintenance to the wife and children onthe basis of the claim of the petitioner/wife without considering theobjections of the revision petitioner/husband. It is seen that thedefence of the respondent is struck off. I find that there is no powerfor the court in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.to strike off thedefence. What the court below can do is only to execute the order ofmaintenance and not to strike off the defence. Hence, the order is setaside. The court below is directed to consider the contentions of therespondent and dispose of the matter after taking evidence. Therevision petitioner shall appear before the Family Court on 28-3-2007.The Crl.revision petition is disposed of accordingly. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGEks.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: revision petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 01 Mar 2007. The bench was K R UDAYABHANU.
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.