PATHUMMA AND ANR versus MOHAMMAD

PATHUMMA AND ANR versus MOHAMMAD

The High Court exceeded its revisional powers under section 401 CrPC by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view for the trial court’s finding regarding appellant No.2's status as the child of the respondent, which are pure questions of fact. The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate's finding that appellant No.2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent and entitled to maintenance.

Parties
Appellant: Pathumma; Appellant: Sulekha; Respondent: Muhammad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Kerala High Court Judgment in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 188 and 204 of 1979
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No.462A/81 allowed, Criminal Appeal No.463/81 dismissed; order of Kerala High Court set aside regarding maintenance for appellant No.2; High Court's order in Criminal Revision Petition No.204/1979 affirmed; liberty granted to approach Magistrate for enhancement of maintenance for appellant No.2; no...
Legal Topics
Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr PC, Revisional Jurisdiction
Family Law Criminal Law Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr PC Revisional Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pathumma

Appellant

Sulekha

Appellant

Muhammad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Kerala High Court Judgment in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 188 and 204 of 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant No.1 was the married wife of the respondent
  2. 2 Whether appellant No.2 was the legitimate or illegitimate child of the respondent
  3. 3 Scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court exceeded its revisional powers under section 401 CrPC by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view for the trial court’s finding regarding appellant No.2's status as the child of the respondent, which are pure questions of fact. The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate's finding that appellant No.2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent and entitled to maintenance.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No.462A/81 allowed, Criminal Appeal No.463/81 dismissed; order of Kerala High Court set aside regarding maintenance for appellant No.2; High Court's order in Criminal Revision Petition No.204/1979 affirmed; liberty granted to approach Magistrate for enhancement of maintenance for appellant No.2; no...

Orders

  • Order of Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.188/1979 set aside; maintenance to appellant No.2 at Rs.25 per month restored as granted by Magistrate.
  • Order of Kerala High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No.204/1979 affirmed.