WP(C) Nos. 28461/2018 & con.cases, 2263/2019, 14430/2019, 14439/2019, 13142/2018, 15921/2018, 16113/2018, 16405/2018, 17493/2018, 17940/2018, 18674/2018, 18775/2018, 18888/2018, 20435/2018, 20507/2018, 20508/2018, 20600/2018, 20808/2018, 23309/2018, 24974/2018, 26001/2018, 22941/2019, 27756/2018, 29337/2018, 29922/2018, 31146/2018, 31141/2018, 31132/2018, 32037/2018, 34912/2018, 37103/2018, 38643/2018 This batch of writ petitions concerns provisional empanelled employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) seeking regularisation and challenging termination orders issued by KSRTC following the Government's regularisation regime. The court traces a detailed chronology beginning with the bipartite settlement of 2008, followed by Government orders in 2011 and 2013 and KSRTC's 2012–2018 termination actions that were predicated on the condition of ten years of service and 120 days of duty per year. The petitioners relied on earlier judgments (notably Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala) that had protected some regularised employees and argued that many petitioners had obtained judgments favorable to their regularisation, which KSRTC later sought to defeat. The court discusses the involvement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 4435–4438 of 2017, which held that appropriate conditions for regularisation could be laid down, and that the earlier High Court view to the contrary could not stand. It also notes the binding effect of Article 141 of the Constitution on such Supreme Court declarations. The judgment ultimately sets aside the impugned termination orders, directs the KSRTC to hear each petitioner with documentary proof (service records, attendance, etc.), and to determine eligibility for regularisation within a defined timeline. If petitioners prove ten years of service and 120 days of duty per year up to 21.12.2011, regularisation must be ordered within three months; pensionary benefits are to be provided where appropriate. The decision binds all similarly situated petitioners and KSRTC to comply with the order within the specified timeframes.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.27939/2023) challenges paragraphs 2(E) and 6 of Ext.P2, which reserve all four DNB (Post Diploma) seats in Psychiatry in Kerala for in-service candidates, arguing that the arrangement limits the petitioner’s opportunity for admission in the State. The Petitioner, placed in the NBEMS rank list, seeks admission to a Kerala Government Health Centre seat in Psychiatry due to family constraints (having twins aged about ten months) and the difficulty of relocating to New Delhi or another state. The State contends that out of ten seats, five are reserved for in-service candidates and five are allocated via centralized NBEMS allotment; among the centralized seats are two in Anaesthesiology, two in Orthopaedics, and one in Obstetrics & Gynecology, while the rest are reserved for in-service intake based on necessity. The Petitioner relies on Praveen S. Lal v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 712) to challenge institutional preference, but the Court distinguishes it as not applicable to the present case. The judgment cites a Division Bench decision in W.A.No.219 of 2022 supporting State discretion to reserve in-service seats and ultimately dismisses the petition, noting no interference with centralized seats. The Court clarifies that its decision does not express an opinion on the Centralized allocation seats.
This writ petition challenges the inclusion of petitioners' land in the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The land is described as Purayidam in revenue records, Survey No.175/2, Palissery, Thrissur, and is adjacent to a tile factory. The petitioners applied for Form-5 to delete land from the Data Bank; Ext.P10 proposed deletion of the eastern portion up to the factory backside, but the LLMC refused to remove the entire property. In WP(C) No.21537/2021, this Court had directed reconsideration in light of Ext.P11 judgment (Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others, 2020) and Ext.P12 order, and the LLMC’s later decision followed the site verification and KSREC report. The LLMC concluded that the land on the eastern side was associated with an industrial unit and storage, while the western part appeared barren; it decided to exclude the portion up to the pond from the Data Bank and retain the rest. The petitioners contended that Ext.P12 violates Rule 4(1)(a) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, since the land is Purayidam in revenue records and not cultivable paddy land. The Government Pleader resisted, noting the land is described as purayidom and nilam in different records. The High Court held that the Data Bank must reflect cultivable lands as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, and quashed Exts.P10 and P12, directing the entire 1.07 hectares to be excluded from the Data Bank within six weeks, disposing of the petition.
The writ petition concerns the assessment of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for 17 independently constructed buildings within the petitioner’s Rain Country resort premises at Lakkidi, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad. After completing construction of five buildings, Ext. P1 recorded a separate assessment. On completion of the remaining 12 buildings, Ext. P2 assessed all 17 as a single unit, treating the entire complex as one property for tax purposes. The petitioner challenged Exts. P2 to P4—appealing to the second respondent and obtaining a revision before the third respondent, both of which were dismissed. The respondents argued that the 17 buildings, though structurally distinct, are owned by the petitioner, function as a single integrated resort, and thus should be assessed as a single unit under Section 5(5) of the Act; the resort’s use as a hotel complex supported this view, with Lalitha v. State of Kerala cited to suggest hotel complexes may be treated as units. The petitioner contends each building is separately numbered and structurally independent, invoking Section 2(e) and Section 5(1) to argue for separate assessments, and cites District Collector, Kakkanad (Full Bench) to support separate building tax for multiple structures. The court, after analysis, held that the 17 buildings are separate structures and must be assessed separately, not clubbed as a single unit. Exts. P2 to P4 were set aside and the authority was directed to reassess within two months as separate units.
CON.CASE(C) NO.1247 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court case arises from WP(C) No.25578 of 2015 and concerns alleged willful disobedience of the directions in Annexure A1 accompanying the 12.10.2018 judgment in WP(C) No.25578/2018 and connected matters. The petitioners (Petitioners 30–32) are EPF employees challenging the failure of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to implement the directions, especially regarding pension scheme provisions and options under the pre‑ and post‑amendment framework. The Supreme Court’s 04.11.2022 judgment in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634) held that the notification G.S.R.609(E) of 22 August 2014 is legal and valid and directed read‑downs and extensions of certain options for employees under the amended pension scheme. Paragraph 44 of that judgment enumerates directions including read‑downs of the pre‑amendment and post‑amendment provisions (e.g., paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4)), applicability to exempted establishments, and an extension for exercising options. The Kerala High Court, after hearing, held that the entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision and closed the Contempt Case, while noting EPFO’s obligation to act in accordance with law and the Apex Court’s directions. The order preserves EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance.
On 8 July 2005 at about 12:10 pm, the accused Vaman was found in possession of 2.5 litres of arrack in a jerry can in front of a grocery shop by CW1 and an Excise party, triggering proceedings under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with default imprisonment for three more months and a set-off. An appeal, Crl.Appeal No.601 of 2008, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alappuzha, was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court challenged procedural deficiencies: unexplained three-day delay in producing material objects; absence of specimen seals and seal descriptions in Ext.P1 mahazar; no forwarding note; Ext.P7 lacking a date; and lack of independent verification of the sample’s custody and forwarding for chemical analysis. The court surveyed authorities stressing strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities due to the Act’s harsh penalties, noting presumption of regular official acts does not apply where acts are not properly performed. Multiple precedents on delay, chain-of-custody, specimen seals, forwarding notes, and lab correlation were cited. Finding grave lacunae in the chain of custody and documentary gaps, the High Court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the accused, with bail cancelled and refunds ordered for any deposited amounts.
W.P.(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions, filed by managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala, challenges Government Order GO(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 07.07.2022 and the accompanying Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23. The petitions trace the historical allocations of seats in PAHS: Open Merit, Management Quota, Community Quota, and the evolution through GO orders (1991, 2003, 2005, 2005–2003 lines) and the CAP process. The core dispute is whether the Government may reduce the Management Quota to 20% in PAHS and prescribe a 10% Community Quota for the school’s declared community, with unused community seats converting to merit via CAP. The court confirms the 20% Management Quota is permissible and policy-compliant, but nullifies the 10% Community Quota as unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, holding it arbitrary and discriminatory against non-declared private managers. It directs the 10% seats to be treated as open merit seats to be allocated through CAP strictly on merit. Admissions already made under community declarations are left undisturbed. The judgment emphasizes judicial restraint in reviewing government policy, while upholding constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
This motor accident claims appeal arises from an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode dated 05.11.2007 in O.P.(MV) No.385/2003, relating to the death of Sainul Aabid Thangal in a 04.12.2002 accident. The appellant, Shereefa Beevi, as legal representative of the deceased, contends the Tribunal's award of Rs.1,90,000 is unjustly low. Counsel emphasizes that the deceased was a 22-year-old coolie with potential future earnings, and relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd to argue for a higher monthly income; additionally, the respondent insurer is urged to follow Pranay Sethi principles for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The Tribunal had fixed a monthly income of Rs.1,375, which the appellant challenged as too low. The Kerala High Court, applying Ramachandrappa, fixes a monthly income of Rs.3,500 and applies a 40% uplift for future prospects, given the deceased’s youth, with a 50% deduction for personal expenses. The Court recalculates the dependency award to Rs.3,53,200 and approves additional sums for funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium (Rs.14,500, Rs.16,500, and Rs.44,000 respectively), while disallowing love-and-affection and pain-and-suffering for legal heirs. The insurer is directed to pay the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest within two months. The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal’s award is enhanced accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 51 of 2011) arising from a conviction under Section 498A IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, in SC No. 406/2008. The appellant, Babu, was married to the deceased Laly and allegedly subjected her to cruelty, with the prosecution asserting that his conduct drove her to suicide by self-immolation on 18.03.2006. The trial court acquitted him of the offences under Sections 306 and 201 IPC but convicted him under 498A and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with default imprisonment. On appeal, the Kerala High Court scrutinized the prosecution’s case, noting that none of the key witnesses directly saw the incident; important evidence included the son PW1 and neighbours PW2 and PW6, who did not testify to a willful act by the accused. The court held that there was no credible dying declaration recorded under Section 32, and the FIR Ext. P1(a) was delayed—raising questions under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The judge considered case law on the independence of sections 306 and 498A but distinguished it, finding the evidence inadequate to prove willful conduct by the accused. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of 498A, setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering his release. The bail bonds were cancelled accordingly.
WA 2370 of 2016; WA 169 of 2017 These writ appeals challenge orders denying registration of lands under the Malabar Land Registration Act, 1895 on the ground that the Act had been repealed by Ordinance No.18 of 2005. The appellants contended that registration could be sought under the 1895 Act despite the repeal, and that the authorities acted without properly following constitutional and legal requirements. The learned Single Judge rejected the petitions, holding that the 1895 Act had been repealed by the Ordinance, and that the subsequent orders were in accordance with law. The Division Bench, however, overruled the reasoning that reliance on the Ordinance sufficed to deny registration and held that the Ordinance repealing obsolete enactments cannot bypass Article 213 of the Constitution. Relying on Krishna Kumar Singh (seven‑member Constitution Bench), it held that Ordinances must comply with Article 213 and that repromulgation or continuance without legislative sanction is unconstitutional. The court emphasized the distinction between a temporary Act and an Ordinance and rejected the enduring rights theory (Bhupendra Kumar Bose line of decisions). It directed the competent respondents to reconsider the appellants’ applications under the Malabar Land Registration Act, 1895 in light of constitutional requirements and law, within three months, after hearing the appellants. The judgment remits the matter to proper registration procedures under the statutory regime, without negating public interest considerations.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.2494/2021) concerns the promotion seniority and appointment of the Headmaster at St. Sebastian’s High School, Punnakkal. Xavier T.J., a regular High School Assistant (Physical Science) since 1989, challenged the appointment of K.J. Jose as Headmaster in 2018. The petitioner argued that he was senior to the 7th respondent and had attained qualification by Kerala Education Rules tests, making him eligible for promotion under Rule 43 read with Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). The school, a minority institution, had allegedly appointed the junior teacher under minority rights invoked by the Manager, despite the vacancy arising in 2018 when the senior teacher Shalee A. Jose retired. Ext.P5 (appointment order) did not show the required written consent renouncing seniority, and Ext.P9 (Government order) purportedly approving the appointment was contested. The petitioner contends the vacancy could be filled only by promotion following seniority, with proper re-appointment to the parent school for computation of seniority, and that protected/retrenched teachers cannot claim the Headmaster post in the parent school. The court examined minority autonomy, fairness, and transparency in selection, citing various judgments including Saji Thomas, Anilkumar, Rabindranath Bose, C. C. Gupta, Nagaraj, and Manager, Mar Sleeba. It ultimately allowed the petition, directing a notional promotion from 01.06.2018 with pensionary adjustments and prompt formalization of the promotion by the competent authorities, while setting aside Exts.P5 and P9. The decision emphasises the need for rational, fair, and non-discriminatory application of minority rights within statutory rules.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1892 OF 2023; B.A. NO. 1893 OF 2023 Arun Thomas, aged 31, the branch manager of KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd., faced two separate FIRs—Crime No.1656/2022 and Crime No.1952/2022—at Kothamangalam Police Station for misappropriation and breach of trust-related offences (Sections 408 and 420 IPC, read with Section 34). The bail petitions (B.A. Nos. 1892/2023 and 1893/2023) were heard on 15 March 2023 and decided in a common order dated 31 March 2023 by Justice A. Badharudeen Friday. In Crime No.1656/2022, the case alleges that the petitioner collected Rs. 6,00,000 from Jeslin Mathews Rajan in the name of the company but did not record it, siphoning the funds. In Crime No.1952/2022, the prosecution contends the accused diverted Rs. 43,51,685 by transferring funds to gold loan holders and then misappropriating the amount. The prosecution asserts a prima facie case and notes no recovery of the amounts, while the defense maintains innocence and claims vendetta by colleagues. The court, while acknowledging the prima facie case and ongoing investigation, notes the custody since 29 January 2023 and the need to avoid stalling the inquiry. It grants regular bail subject to stringent conditions: bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; a condition to co-operate with investigation; restrictions on leaving India; surrender of passport; regular reporting to IO; and prohibition on committing any other offence during bail.
Unnikrishnan Nair challenges the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and the concurrent appellate affirmations, in a Kerala High Court criminal revision under Cr.P.C. Sections 397 and 401. The case stems from a cheque for Rs. 10 lakh, dated 25.09.2016, said to discharge a loan by the accused to the complainant, M/s KPB Nidhi Limited, Haripad. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Haripad, after trial, found the accused guilty under NI Act Section 138 and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000? to be paid as compensation (with an additional imprisonment in default). The Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara, confirmed both conviction and sentence. The revision argues that the cheque was a signed blank instrument later filled by the complainant without the accused’s knowledge or consent, negating a legally enforceable debt, thus challenging the application of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. It contends that revisional power should permit re‑appreciation of evidence and that the courts below misapplied the law. The High Court references many Supreme Court precedents on revisional jurisdiction and presumptions in NI Act cases. Ultimately, the court allows the revision in part, maintaining conviction but modifying the sentence: one day’s simple imprisonment till rising of the court, a fine of Rs. 10 lakh (to be paid as compensation), two months’ time to comply, and deferral of execution with a scheduled future appearance.
The petitioner, P. Anil, was appointed as a High School Assistant (English) at Tharakan High School, Angadipuram on 18-08-2008 in an additional anticipated vacancy created during the ban period. He challenges Ext. P11, the order denying approval from the initial appointment date, seeking to quash denial and obtain approval from the date of original appointment. He contends that he had previously approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30441 of 2012, which, by judgment dated 19-12-2012, directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and decide. The resultant Ext. P11 denial was based on the manager not executing a bond as required by G.O.(P) No. 10/10/G.Edn. The petitioner argues that the government’s sequence of orders from 2005 to 2011—bans on additional vacancies, their subsequent lifting, and the “comprehensive teacher’s package” for deployed/protected teachers—ultimately regularised appointments from 01.06.2011; similarly placed teachers obtained court directions to approve appointments from their dates of appointment, deeming bonds to have been executed. The petitioner asserts non-execution of bonds should be deemed executed, entitling him to equal appointments to those approved during the ban period. Respondents contend that all such appointments require a bonded undertaking and that certain matters are pending before the Supreme Court. The Court, relying on State of Kerala v. Suma Devi (Suma Devi) and related jurisprudence, holds that the impugned Ext. P11 cannot sustain the petitioner’s position and directs reconsideration of Ext. P9 and Ext. P15, with the bond deemed to have been executed and a 1:1 apportionment from the protected-bonned pool, subject to final Supreme Court orders. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
This writ petition concerns a SARFAESI Act recovery proceeding initiated by the State Bank of India against the 2nd respondent for defaulted credit facilities. The secured asset was possession-taken by an Advocate Commissioner on 27.7.2022 following Exhibits, with the 2nd respondent moving for release of machinery under Exhibit P8. The bank did not object to the release, and Exhibit P9 was passed directing release. The petitioner sought recall via Exhibit P10, which was dismissed by Exhibit P11 on the ground that it was passed after hearing all sides and that a criminal court cannot review its own order under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, interim developments saw the 7th respondent (ISRO) conduct inspections and prepare an inventory (Exhibit R7(a)). The petitioner contends, citing Harshad Govardhan Sondagar and Grindlays Bank cases, that a magistrate under SARFAESI has reviewable power under Articles 226/227 and that ancillary and incidental powers permit correction of mistakes. It also cites Deepthi T.S. for two types of review: substantive and procedural. The respondents contend the earlier order was meritorious and that certain assets outside the secured asset were involved. The court, noting the 7th respondent’s affidavit and lack of objection, disposes the petition by directing release of listed articles to 7th/8th and setting aside Exhibits P9 and P11, leaving other issues for future proceedings.
This is a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the Family Court, Malappuram's order in MC No.167/2014 dated 22 July 2016, which granted maintenance to the wife and minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner, Mohammed Basheer @ Muthu, contends that after working abroad he lost his job and underwent surgery; at present he has no income, a fact he argues should affect the maintenance order. The respondents maintain that the wife and children are dependent and that the Family Court correctly held the husband had sufficient income and obliged him to pay maintenance; they argue the revision petition remains pending and that a stay has affected the survivors. The High Court, citing limits on revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C., reiterates that the revisional power is supervisory and not an appellate one, and that interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on non‑consideration of material. Citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, the court concludes there is no illegality in entitlement or quantum. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the Family Court's order remains, maintaining the maintenance awarded to the wife and minors.
This motor accident claims appeal challenges the award dated 15.10.2012 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Ajay, the son of the appellants and brother of the third appellant. The Tribunal held contributory negligence by the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was traveling (50% deduction) and awarded Rs. 4,07,448 as total compensation, with Rs. 2,03,724 payable to the claimants. The insurer admitted coverage but contended the accident occurred primarily due to the deceased’s co-rider, and that the rider of the deceased’s motorcycle was not a party to the petition. There was no oral evidence; Exts. A1–A13 and B1–B2 were marked. The High Court relied on charge-sheet evidence (Pazhaniammal) to treat the charge sheet as prima facie evidence of negligence and overturned the Tribunal’s 50% contributory negligence finding. Drawing on Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, Susamma Thomas and other precedents, it computed enhanced compensation for a 28-year-old, applying 40% future prospects and a 17 multiplier, with deductions for personal expenses and filial consortium. It increased the total to Rs.5,08,450 with 7.5% interest and directed payment within two months, distributing amounts per 30:50:20 among claimants. The appeal is allowed with costs.
OP (CAT).No. 317 of 2016 (Z) These petitions challenge a common Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 22-11-2016, which dismissed notional promotion relief sought by Postmen and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Department of Posts to reach eligibility for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDC) for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant. The petitioners, originally Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), were later appointed as Postmen or MTS. They argued that administrative delays in conducting the LDC examination deprived them of the chance to complete the necessary regular service by the cut-off date and that they should be granted notional promotions or notional service from the date of vacancy to satisfy eligibility. They relied on earlier CAT decisions in Annexures A1–A2 and on judgments of this Court confirming similar orders. The respondents opposed, emphasizing that Najithamol Y. v Soumya S.D. (2016) 4 KHC 280 and subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements establish that GDS to Postman is direct recruitment, not promotion; hence notional promotion or delayed seniority cannot be granted. The Tribunal’s reliance on Najithamol’s ratio is correct and binding, and this Court upholds it, noting the changed position of law after Annexures A1–A2. The petitioners joined their posts and did not challenge appointments earlier, so equity does not warrant antedating. The petitions fail; the CAT order is upheld and the relief denied.
The petitioner is the Manager of A.S.M Higher Secondary School, Veliyanchery, an aided institution governed by the Kerala Education Act and Rules. The school reportedly produced over 300 SSLC graduates in the previous year, yet there are only 200 seats available for Plus One. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P1 on 7.11.2020 requesting sanction for three additional higher secondary batches, including Biology Science (09) and Commerce (38). The core grievance is that despite clear evidence of need, the government delayed action and rejected the request via Exhibit P5 GO. The petitioner relied on this Court’s directions in Manager, St. Sebastian’s High School, Thrissur v. State of Kerala and Ors (2015 (1) KHC 725), which mandated a structured mechanism at regional and state levels to assess educational needs and to complete the process by deadlines; Ext.P4 (GO MS 75/2016) implemented those directions. During hearings, the Government asserted no objection to complying with directions from the Division Bench and acknowledged the earlier guidelines. The judgment under consideration reviews the lack of a transparent policy and reiterates the constitutional obligation to provide education, while allowing for policy-based decision-making with limited judicial interference. It acknowledges acute need in Malappuram and directs prompt government action consistent with St. Sebastian’s directives to consider new or additional batches if required, ensuring fair, transparent processes for allotment of higher secondary courses across districts.
This Kerala High Court revision petition challenges a Family Court maintenance order passed in MC 75/2019, Thalassery. The Family Court, in part, allowed the maintenance claim for the second petitioner (the son) at Rs. 15,000 per month from 01.03.2019 and negatived the maintenance claim of the first petitioner (the wife). The petitioners allege that the Family Court erred by holding the wife to be living in adultery with Mr. Praveen, thereby disentitling her from maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision court re-examines legal and factual findings, including whether the wife’s conduct constitutes “living in adultery” and whether she was able to maintain herself given alleged employment prospects and past earnings. It accepts that direct evidence of adultery is often difficult, citing established precedents that a single lapse from virtue does not automatically negate maintenance and that “living in adultery” connotes a continuous course of conduct, not isolated acts. On analysis, the High Court supplements the Family Court’s approach, finds the adulterous finding baseless on the record, and holds that the first petitioner was unemployed at the relevant time with no proven ongoing adulterous relationship. It remands MC 75/2019 to the Family Court for determining the appropriate monthly maintenance balance, while sustaining the second petitioner’s maintenance. The revision is allowed overall, and the impugned order is set aside in part accordingly.
