BHAGAVATHY RADHA Vs. NARAYANAN KAMALASANAN
LAWS(KER)-1993-11-3
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 30,1993

BHAGAVATHY RADHA Appellant
VERSUS
NARAYANAN KAMALASANAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HPAY LATT V. MA FO BYU [REFERRED TO]
KIRPARAM CHHOTAN RAOT VS. KALIBAI [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT BANDHU SAHU VS. LAKSHMI DEI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANJEET KAUR VS. TEJ PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-166] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)A destitute wife obtained an order under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') as early as July, 1980 fixing the monthly maintenance allowance at Rs. 100/- after much haggling. But even that amount remains a mirage for her as the successive applications made by her for recovery of the arrears amount reached cul de sac. This is the third tier in the judicial hierarchy she climbs like a mendicant even for the modicum. The third application filed by her was seemingly out of time but it was salvaged by the magistrate who treated it as continuation of the earlier application. However, the Sessions Judge in revision has held that it is irretrievably out of time. Hence she has come to this Court with the present revision petition.
(2.)The order to pay maintenance allowance passed by the judicial magistrate remained in abeyance till August, 1981 due to the pendency of a revision in the Sessions Court. Travails of the petitioner really began thereafter as she had to launch the process for enforcement of the order. Three applications were filed by her and all the three were dismissed on account of failure of the respondent to appear.
(3.)First application was filed on 26-7-1982 for arrears due from 19-7-80 to 19-7-82. It was not beyond time since the earliest monthly instalment of the allowance became due only after August, 1981 when the Sessions court dismissed the revision petition. A second application was filed on 25-8-83 for the subsequent period (from 19-7-82 to 19-7-83). But both applications were dismissed on 11-11-1983 as the magistrate concerned could not get the defaulter husband. She then repeated her prayer through another application filed on 22-6-84 in which she claimed arrears from 19-7-80 onwards till the previous month of that application (i.e., 19-5-84). But that also met with the same fate on 24-1-1985.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.