Con.Case (C) No. 2098 of 2020 This is a contempt of court petition filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arising out of WP(C) No. 9423 of 2017. The petitioners—listed petitioners 5, 26, 34, 35, 55, 58, 60, 83, 89 and 121 with several individuals named as petitioners—alleged willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 25 February 2019, which itself followed Annexure A2 judgment dated 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 13120/2015 and related matters. The Supreme Court later scrutinized the pension-related scheme via its 4 November 2022 judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters (Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO), holding the validity of the 2014 amendment to the pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E) of 2014) and directing certain read-down adjustments for present fund members. The Kerala High Court, after hearing the petitioners and the EPFO, noted that the entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in light of the apex court’s 2022 judgment and directed that the exercise be undertaken in accordance with law. The contempt petition is closed with a rider that the EPFO will re-examine petitioners’ entitlement and ensure compliance with applicable amendments, with timeframes and conditions as clarified by the Supreme Court’s judgment. The appendix references annexures A1–A4, including judgments dated 25.02.2019, 12.10.2018, 01.04.2019, and 06.11.2020.
OP(KAT) No.148/2022; OP(KAT) No.82/2022 These Original Proceedings arise from a common verdict of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 22.02.2022 in OA(Ekm) No.8/2020 and OA(Ekm) No.1311/2019, relating to appointments to posts of Full-time Hindi Language Teachers (KTET-IV) in Malappuram and Palakkad districts. The petitioners (Kerala Public Service Commission and its District Office) challenge the Tribunal’s findings that CTET holders can be exempted from KTET for the said posts and the manner in which the interview/admission processes were conducted. The respondents, including the State General Education Department, rely on the prescribed recruitment norms and Government Orders (GO(P) Nos.145/16 and 206/16) and contend that KTET-IV is mandatory; they rely on Annexure-A12 (circular dated 09.03.2018) and the related GO provisions to justify the decision to reject CTET-qualified candidates unless exemption is expressly allowed. The High Court observes that the issues are substantially identical across the two petitions and that the Tribunal was correct in finding the legal issues in the applicants’ favor, but grants limited relief in OP(KAT) No.82/2022 where the applicant could not attend the interview. The Court directs the PSC to interview the petitioner and, based on merit, include her in the ranklist and grant appropriate advice, while directing the Government to finalize a revised norms framework in light of Annexure-A12, consult SCERT, and issue further guidance. The judgment emphasizes timely agitations and clarifies that benefits apply to those who challenged the matter promptly, with time-bound compliance.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Cr.P.C. filed by Mohammedfirose challenging an order cancelling a bail granted in Crime No. 98/2022 (Ottapalam Police Station) for offences under IPC sections 302 and 201 read with 34. The bail was granted by the Court in BA No. 6382/2022 on 23.09.2022, subject to conditions, including that the petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail. While on bail, the petitioner allegedly committed another offence in Crime No. 61/2023 (Sections 341, 324, 307 IPC). The prosecution, though late to file its final report, obtained statutory bail in that case via Annexure-A2. The Sessions Court subsequently cancelled the bail in the first case under Section 439(2) CrPC. The petitioner’s counsel submits that there is an affidavit from the informant in the second crime stating no further grievance and that mere registration of a subsequent crime cannot justify cancellation of bail; they rely on Godson v. State of Kerala, Renjith v. State of Kerala and other precedents distinguishing cancellation of bail from setting aside an order, contending that there must be supervening circumstances. The Public Prosecutor counters, citing P. v. Madhya Pradesh and Edwin Thomas and other authorities, arguing misuse of liberty justifies cancellation. The High Court, distinguishing between setting aside an order and canceling bail, ultimately upholds the cancellation, holding the petitioner had misused liberty. The petition is dismissed; the bail cancellation stands, with liberty for surrender and reapplication for regular bail under applicable principles.
This is a criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the appellant-accused no.7, Rajendran, challenging his conviction and sentence for offences under sections 457 and 397 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha, in Sessions Case No.243 of 2005. The prosecution's case is built on the statements of PW1 (husband) and PW2 (wife), who testified that on 21.10.1990, about nine intruders forcibly entered their house, broke open the front door, assaulted PW1 with an iron rod and caused a head injury, and forcibly took away gold ornaments and other valuables worth Rs.66,500, while the appellant allegedly guarded the couple during the burglary. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 457 and 397 IPC. On appeal, the defence argued that the identification of the appellant by PW1 and PW2 in court after several years, without a test identification parade, is unreliable; no weapon was used by him; there was no recovery of stolen articles, and therefore the case fails under section 397. The State contends the circumstances (presence of the appellant with the victims for over an hour, adequate lighting, and the sequence of events) establish identity and justify charges. The Kerala High Court holds that the act amounts to a burglary with robbery, but the evidence does not support a conviction under 397; applying the principle from Ganesan, the court holds 397 is not attracted to this accused. The conviction is thus altered to 457 and 395 IPC with concurrent three-year terms and fines. The appeal is allowed in part.
The petitioner, Jithin @ Unnimon, a resident of Wadakkancherry, Thrissur, challenges externment under KAAPA 15(1)(a) dated 13.03.2023 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, restricting him from entering Thrissur District for six months. The externment was based on three criminal cases at Wadakkancherry Police Station (2021–2022), involving IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34; 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149; and 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, 427, 308. A Rowdy History Sheet was opened, with prior bail bonds and interim bonds recorded; a show-cause notice was issued, heard on 07.03.2023, and the externment order was served on 17.03.2023. The petitioner claims an unexplained delay between the last prejudicial act (21.11.2022) and the externment order erodes the live link, arguing reliance on Shamnad Amiyan and Asker Ali to quash the order. The State relies on Stalin C.V. and Harikrishnan to distinguish Section 15 from detention under Section 3 and to justify compliance with KAAPA’s procedural safeguards, including a proper show cause and hearing. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that there was no inordinate delay, the live link was not snapped, and the externment order was valid; the petition was dismissed.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No.836 of 2017) challenging a conviction under Section 302 IPC in SC No.803 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The occurrence occurred on 08.09.2004, resulting in the death of Biju (26). The appellant was 19 years old at the time. The prosecution’s case rests on the ocular testimony of PW2 and corroboration from PW12, with MO4 (knife) seized from a statement by the appellant. The trial court accepted that the appellant stabbed the victim during a scuffle after an altercation in which Biju allegedly mocked the appellant. The physician (PW8) described a deep incised wound in the left neck region, resulting in injury to the superior vena cava and death. The defence argued that the injury was not the kind of wound that the appellant could reasonably be expected to inflict with intent to kill and that the injury may have occurred in a scuffle, hence not satisfying clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The High Court, while acknowledging the ocular evidence, found a substantial doubt whether the injury was inflicted with the intention to kill. Relying on precedents (Virsa Singh; Gokul Parashram Patil; Harjinder Singh; Laxman Kalu Nikalje), the court concluded the guilt did not meet the stringent intent requirement for Section 302. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, altering the conviction to Part II of Section 304 IPC and treating the period already undergone as sufficient punishment. The matter was remanded with the registry directed to communicate the order to the prison.
This writ appeal arises from a Kerala High Court decision in WP(C) 22262/2022, where Jasmine Jose challenged the cancellation of her MA English admission by Mahatma Gandhi University and its affiliated Catholicate College. Jasmine, 23, had completed a BA in English from the University of Bahrain and, after online application and eligibility verification, was admitted to the MA English program at Catholicate College for 2021-2023. The University later cancelled the admission, directing the college to explain the candidate’s academic details; the basis cited was miscalculation of index marks and non-verification of major papers, with reference to the University’s 2022 Prospectus provisions on index marks. Jasmine and the college contended that all required marks and documents were submitted and verified; Jasmine’s CGPA (2.6/4) exceeded the minimum threshold of 1.8, and she had been admitted after eligibility verification. The single judge allowed the petition, permitting Jasmine to continue her studies and indicating that the University could take action against the college later. By the time of the appeal, Jasmine completed the two-year course and sat for the final examination. The University contended that the college miscalculated index marks and failed to verify papers. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upheld the learned Judge’s order, and directed the University to declare Jasmine’s results, noting no suppression by the petitioner and that the course completion was undisputed.
Rajesh @ Soman, the appellant, challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possessing 11 litres of arrack found at Iraviperoor on 27.04.2004. The trial court convicted him after evidence from PWs 1–4 and Exts P1–P8 and MO1–MO2, and the defence case challenged the chain of custody and the journey of the contraband to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. The appellant's counsel argued that Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar does not describe the seal, the seal specimen was not produced, forwarding notes were not marked, and the various officials who handled the sample were not examined, undermining the link to the laboratory analysis. Relying on Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and other precedents, it was contended that the evidence could not prove tamper-free dispatch or proper custody. The prosecution's case was further questioned under Rajamma v. State of Kerala, Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, Sathi v. State of Kerala, Ravi v. State of Kerala, and Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P regarding the necessity of proving chain of custody and correlation with the laboratory report. The High Court held that the arrack did not reach the Chemical Examiner in tamper-proof condition; Ext. P8 had no evidentiary value, and the appeal was allowed, acquitting the appellant.
This is a criminal appeal (Crl.A. No. 2431 of 2006) arising from a dacoity committed on 26.04.2002 near Chemmannu, Thodupuzha. The appellants (Nos. 1–4 and 6) were convicted under Section 397 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I) Thodupuzha and sentenced to seven years’ RI with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each; Accused No.5 was acquitted. PW1 and PW2, employees of a semnivalley estate, were traveling in a jeep carrying about Rs. 3.5 lakh. They were stopped by a Maruti van; three or more masked men wielded swords, smashed the jeep’s glass, attacked PW1 and PW2, and robbed the bag containing Rs. 3,27,840. PW1 suffered serious injuries; PW2 was also assaulted. The van was later involved in an accident at Murinjapuzha, leading to arrests of accused Nos. 2 and 3; accused 4 was identified by PW1 as one brandishing a sword. The prosecution relied on oral testimonies and documentary exhibits; the defense contended that identification of some accused was unreliable and lacked independent corroboration. The High Court held there were six participants but, citing failures to conduct a test identification parade, set aside the convictions of accused Nos. 1 and 6 while affirming those of Nos. 2–4. The appeal was allowed in part, with the remaining convictions to stand and the appellants to surrender within two months to serve sentence.
This High Court of Kerala MACA arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P. (MV) No.611 of 2016. The appellant-claimant, Unnikrishnan, was injured on 19 January 2016 when a car allegedly driven rashly struck him. He sought Rs 10,00,000 in compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs 8,03,700 with 8% interest, against the insurer. On appeal, the claimant pressed for substantial enhancements across heads such as notional income, future prospects, loss of earnings, permanent disability, loss of amenities, and medical expenses. The High Court examined Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to assess notional income, fixing it at Rs 10,500 per month and allowing 10% future prospects in view of a 15% disability (Ext.A11). The disability assessment, originally 40%, was revised to 60% (50% disability plus 10% functional disability) after considering the evidence and Ext.A11. Consequently, the court recalculated compensation: loss of earnings Rs 1,05,000; permanent disability Rs 9,14,760; loss of amenities Rs 75,000; attendant expenses Rs 4,200; medical expenses Rs 1,30,900; pain and suffering Rs 1,00,000; total Rs 13,37,860. The appeal was allowed in part; the insurer must deposit the enhanced amount with 8% interest from the petition date, within two months, and the claimant must furnish PAN, Aadhaar, and bank details. The bench emphasized the need for careful appraisal of medical evidence and the limited scope to modify quantum beyond the court’s view of the facts.
WP(C) Nos.29809/2010 & 34911/2010 These connected writ petitions challenge a building permit and a subsequent order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (TLGI) that purportedly set aside the permit for a third floor of a building in Thrikkakara North Village, Kochi. The petitioner in 29809/2010, A.K. Nazar, along with co-petitioner Fabida and others, contends that ground and first floors were constructed earlier with valid permits (Exts. P5) and that Ext. P6, issued on 26.07.2007 for a third floor, was proper and completed, with occupancy certification to follow. The 34911/2010 petition by Abdul Majeed challenges the building permit process and seeks quashing Ext. P6, arguing inter alia misstatements in land boundaries (Ext. P1), ongoing civil disputes, and that a finalized occupancy certificate was not issued. The Tribunal’s Ext. P12 order setting aside the permit was attacked on the ground that the appellate authority under the Tribunal Rules has no power to condone delay (no provision for such) and that knowledge of the permit, even if belated, cannot render the appeal valid. The Court ultimately holds that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal and sets aside Ext. P12, directing the parties to abide by civil court judgments pending disputes. The writ petitions are disposed accordingly.
This Regular Second Appeal, RSA No.1417 of 2011, arises from the suit OS 423/1997 before the Munsiff Court, Chittur, and the judgment in AS 264/2007 of the II Additional District Court, Palakkad. The appellants (defendants 4 and 5 in the suit) challenged the concurrent decrees recognizing the plaintiffs’ seven daughters of Ranganathan Pillai as the rightful owners of five shop rooms originally purchased by Ranganathan Pillai in 1957. The building was constructed with four shop rooms and later expanded. Ext.A4, issued in 1997, revoked the permission given by Ranganathan Pillai to the defendants to occupy the shops, and the plaintiffs filed a suit asserting their title. The trial court held the property to be self‑acquired by Ranganathan Pillai, not a co‑ownership property, and decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, including the revocation of the alleged license. The first appellate court affirmed. The second appeal contends, among other issues, that a suit for mandatory injunction cannot lie without solid evidence of a license, especially since the licensor died before the suit. The respondents rely on several precedents supporting the maintainability of a mandatory injunction after license termination. The High Court ultimately held that Ext.A3 (assignment to the plaintiffs’ mother and Narayanan) validly transferred rights, enabling revocation of the license and affirming the lower courts’ decrees. The appeal is dismissed, upholding the plaintiffs’ title and possession rights.
RPFC No. 81 of 2017 arises from a Family Court order directing the revision petitioner, Manivannan, to pay maintenance to his wife Udayakumary and their minor daughter Aparna Krishnan at Rs 4,000 per month each from the date of application (26.03.2014). The respondents filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month for each, contending that the marriage produced a daughter and that the petitioner earned Rs 1,00,000 per month. The revision petitioner disputed the allegations, asserting the wife is living separately without sufficient cause and that his health limits his income; he produced Ext. R3 showing income around Rs 7,500 per month (Rs 6,000 salary plus Rs 50 daily wage). The Family Court, after analyzing pleadings and materials, partly allowed the application and directed maintenance at Rs 4,000 per month for each respondent. The petitioner contends illegality/bonafide misrepresentation, while the respondents argue the husband’s obligation under maintenance laws as a social justice measure. The High Court, relying on Bhuwan Mohan Singh, Rajnesh v. Neha, and Captain Ramesh Chander Kauushal, held the petitioner to be an able-bodied person with a notional income of Rs 25,000 and refused to interfere, dismissing the revision petition. The order directing maintenance stands. Deposited amounts may be adjusted while paying the balance.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9084 OF 2022 Shidhin N S, the petitioner, seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in Bail Appl. No. 9084 of 2022, arising from OR No.2 of 2022 of Mannamangalam Forest Station, Thrissur, in a Wildlife Protection Act case involving alleged possession and trading of two elephant tusks. The prosecution charges the petitioner under multiple Wildlife Protection Act provisions (Sections 2(16), 9, 39(3)(a,b), 39(2), 42, 49A(b), 49B(i)(iii), 50, 51, 52). The defense contends he had no role and that the tusks were initially in the custody of a “karyasthan” and a person named Ayyappankutty, not him, with the motive of helping a visually impaired friend undergoing eye surgery; the case is said to be based on information relayed by a third party. The Special Government Pleader (Forest) opposed bail, citing the need for custodial interrogation to examine witnesses and to trace the ivory’s source. The court noted that the tusks had already been seized and that there is no further recovery, and, applying the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, granted bail with multiple conditions: appearance before the IO within three weeks for interrogation; a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; ongoing cooperation; travel restrictions; and a schedule for ongoing interrogation, including alternate-day and then weekly appearances until the final report. The decision cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify the bail approach.
The appeal challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, arising from discovery of 750 ml of diluted spirit in possession for sale at Ambalathumpadu, Pathanamthitta, on 06.09.2003. The Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta, convicted the appellant after trial, but the High Court scrutinises the chain of custody and laboratory linkage essential to Adverse sampling cases. The court emphasises that the prosecution must establish that the contraband seized from the place of occurrence reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory in tamper-proof condition, with the seal’s nature and the specimen sealed properly produced before court. It notes missing details: the seizure mahazar (Ext. P1) does not describe the seal, the seal specimen was not produced, and interrogations of officials who handled the sample during transit were not conducted. Relying on Kerala and Supreme Court authorities (Bhaskaran, Rajamma, Sasidharan, Sathi, Ravi, Santhosh, Karunakar Bindhani, Rafeeque, Vijay Pandey, Daulat Ram), the court holds that the chain of custody and proper sealing are indispensable for admissibility of the chemical analysis. The court also questions the arrest's credibility due to the crime number appearing in the arrest memo. Consequently, the court finds no link between seized contraband and the lab analysis and acquits the appellant, allowing the appeal.
A criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC was considered by the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) in CRL.MC No. 4749 of 2023 filed by accused Nos.1–6 in CC No.2551/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor. The petition sought quashing of proceedings arising from offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 294(b), 341, 323 read with Section 149 IPC, alleged to have occurred on 21.06.2017 when the accused formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the party respondents, and caused injuries. The petition was supported by affidavits from the respondents indicating an amicable settlement and no desire to pursue further action. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though noting there were no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The court reviewed established law on quashing under Section 482 CrPC for non‑compoundable offences in private disputes, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; and State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, which permit such quashing when the dispute is civil/private and resolved, while cautioning against quashing in heinous or public‑interest offences and offences under special statutes. After evaluating the gravity of the offences, the injuries, the petitioners’ antecedents, and the parties’ settlement, the judge concluded that quashing would not adversely impact society and would serve ends of justice. Result: the petition is allowed; Annexure‑2 Final Report in Crime No.1843/2017 and all further proceedings in CC 2551/2017 are quashed.
Babu v. State of Kerala (CRL.A No. 1282 of 2010) concerns an appeal against a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Fast Track Court, Pathanamthitta, for possession of liquor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh after finding him guilty of possessing 35 plastic covers of 150 ml arrack at Kuzhiplavila junction, Peringanadu. The prosecution’s case rested on seizure Ext.P3 and related property lists Ext.P6, along with Ext.P7, the Certificate of Chemical Analysis, and MOs/Exts. The defense challenged the conviction on several grounds: (i) unexplained delay in producing the seized properties to the court; (ii) Ext.P3 seizure mahazar does not describe the seal affixed on the bottle; (iii) no evidence showing that the seal specimen was produced before the court for verification; (iv) officials who handled the sample during transit were not examined to rule out tampering. Relying on precedents including Ravi v. State of Kerala, Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, Rajamma v. State of Kerala, and State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, the court emphasized the need for prompt production of seized property, proper seal description, and chain-of-custody. It held that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, rendering Ext.P7 ineffective. Consequently, the conviction could not stand, and the appellant was acquitted; the CRL.A is allowed.
This Regular First Appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 CPC arises from a suit for specific performance in OS 234/1994, dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad, on 26.10.2002. Nagarajan, the plaintiff-apellant, claimed that his mother Narayani Ammal agreed to sell plaint schedule property for ₹1,65,000 under Ext.A1 dated 31.03.1993, with ₹35,000 paid upfront and installments largely totaling about ₹80,000; possession was given, and Nagarajan alleged readiness and willingness to perform the remaining sale. The defendant contended Ext.A1 was forged, alleging forced thumb impressions on blank papers, and claimed Ext.B6 (25.01.1994) with a third party would supersede Ext.A1. The trial court dismissed both O.S.234/1994 and the connected suit. On appeal, the Kerala High Court scrutinised whether Ext.A1 was proven and whether Nagarajan was ready and willing to perform. It noted smudged thumb impressions and misaligned endorsements on Ext.A1, but held these alone did not prove fraud; it emphasised burden of proof under Section 101 and onus under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the need to examine key witnesses and produce best evidence. The court held that withholding best evidence allowed adverse inferences (Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar) and concluded the plaintiff failed to discharge the prima facie burden. The appeal is dismissed with no costs; interlocutory applications are closed.
This criminal appeal (CRL.A No.496 of 2021) arises from an order dated 10 March 2020 passed by the II Additional Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, directing the Chief Ministerial Officer of the trial court to file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C against respondents 2–8 for offences under multiple IPC provisions (notably 120B, 167, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205–211) and Section 116 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The private complaint, filed through the Sheristadar, was later placed before JFCM-I Kozhikode and then transmitted to III Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode as SC No.203/2021. The underlying case concerns alleged false implication of the appellants in Crime No.750/2014 (Chevayur PS), culminating in an acquittal in SC No.500/2015. The appellants contend that Section 340 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked for offences listed in Section 195 Cr.P.C. and that offences outside that list (e.g., 167, 219 IPC and 116 KP Act) cannot form the basis for such a complaint; they also challenge lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and argue that the impugned order inappropriately directed proceedings beyond Section 195. The court examines the scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the backdrop of the 195 Cr.P.C framework and the proposition in Iqbal Singh Marva v. Meenakshi Marva, ultimately partially allowing the appeal and upholding the portion directing a complaint for offences within Section 195 Cr.P.C while reversing the 340-based filing for outside offences.
This High Court revision petition challenges the Family Court, Thalassery, order in MC No.160/2016 directing the revision petitioner, A. Asees, to pay maintenance to his minor daughter, Aayina Amina, at Rs.4,000 per month from the date of petition (27 July 2016). The minor had approached under Section 125 CrPC, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000, asserting the father earned Rs.80,000 per month in the Gulf and refused support. The petitioner admits paternity but contends that his wife deserted him without cause and that his mother-in-law is mentally ill, leaving him with a meagre income as a coolie (about Rs.8,000 per month) and responsibilities to three children from a first marriage. He did not lead evidence at the Family Court; the court nonetheless found the respondent minor’s inability to self-support and, applying notional income concepts, fixed Rs.4,000 per month, based on the uncontroverted testimony of the respondent. The Family Court’s order was upheld by the Kerala High Court, which relied on Supreme Court authority such as Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr; Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal; and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, underscoring maintenance as a social-justice entitlement. The court held there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition, reiterating the protective aim of maintenance provisions for dependants."
