Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 19 To December 25, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 658- 666]Dr Asha Sreedhar v. Dr Shahinamole S and Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 658Amaldev v. Preeja & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 659Ressy Mol Babu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 660Sreeja T. & Ors. v. Rajaprabha 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 661Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 662Devananda P P v. Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 663Mohammed Nazer M.P. & Ors. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 664Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India & Anr. And Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 665Dr. K.K. Ramachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 666Orders/Judgments This Week[Professor Appointment] Teaching Experience Can Only Be One That Is Gained After Acquiring Essential PG Qualification: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Dr Asha Sreedhar v. Dr Shahinamole S and Connected Cases Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 658The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that the teaching experience prescribed under the Special Rules in force for promotion to the post of Professor (in the Department of Prasuti Tantra and Striroga) has to be read along with the provisions of Rule 10 (ab) of Part II Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR) and thereby, it observed that teaching experience can only be one that is gained after the acquisition of the essential qualification.Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C P observed that, "When we read the provisions in the Special Rules along with Rule 10 (ab) of Part II KS & SSR, as the Tribunal did in the instant case, the conclusion is inescapable that the teaching experience of ten years mentioned for the post of Professor is one that has to be gained after obtaining the basic PG qualification required for the post".Kerala High Court Deprecates 'Clever Attempts' Made By Qualified Persons To Establish Less Income In Maintenance ProceedingsCase Title: Amaldev v. Preeja & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 659The Kerala High Court on Monday deprecated attempts made by qualified persons to establish less income by producing salary certificates issued from private entrepreneurs, without opportunity to the other side to cross-examine the author of the document, in order to avoid paying maintenance to wife and children. The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that courts shall consider the entire evidence, the professional or other qualifications, otherwise the physical condition and all other attenuating circumstances of the husband/respondent, while quantifying the maintenance allowance."Clever attempts of qualified persons to establish less income by producing salary certificates issued from private entrepreneurs, without opportunity to the other side to cross-examine the author of the document to test its genesis, shall not be the sole basis of considering the income of the husband/respondent in a maintenance petition and such certificates alone shall not be decisive in determining the income also. The courts shall consider the entire evidence, the professional or other qualifications, otherwise the physical condition and all other attenuating circumstances of the husband/respondent, while quantifying the maintenance allowance".Can't Stick On Technicalities Like Cut-Off Dates To Refuse Benefits: Kerala HC Asks State To Write Off Loans Taken For Endosulfan Victim's TreatmentCase Title: Ressy Mol Babu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 660The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Government to consider the debts incurred by the family of an endosulfan victim as debts qualified for waiver under Debt Waiver Scheme for Endosulfan Victims, and to write off the loans immediately. The direction comes after State refused to write off loans on the ground that the concerned GO for writing off loans up to Rs.3 Lakhs was applicable only to loans availed upto 30.06.2011.Justice V.G. Arun observed, "Neither the State nor this Court can pretend to be oblivious of the plight of the endosulfan victims and their families in Kasaragod. It is pertinent to note that the NHRC recommended to pay Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to victims like Ann Mariya. The Commission has also recommended to increase the quantum of relief and rehabilitation to victims and their families. Of course, the State came out with relief and rehabilitation packages. The daunting question is whether, in a case of this nature, the State and its officers can stick on technicalities like cut off dates for refusing the benefits due to the family of a victim".Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Must Be Granted From Date Of Filing Of Petition: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sreeja T. & Ors. v. Rajaprabha Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 661The Kerala High Court recently held that a petitioner under Section 125 CrPC must be granted maintenance from the date of filing of petition and not just date of passing of...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 19 To December 25, 2022

Navya Benny

Tags