DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance






Number of Documents : 58

INSTALL ANDROID APP



1.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-09-29
Criminal Revision No 2625 of 2014J. Anita ChaudhryMonu Songra vs PinkiCrPC 125

Whether Application for Interim Maintenance can be Rejected Considering Contents of FIR Filed by Wife ?

The wife in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not disclose that she was a Physiotherapist or was earning but in the First Information Report lodged with the police in September 2013 she had mentioned that she was a Physiotherapist (doctor). The information was provided by the complainant. There was no reason for the complainant to mention that. When it has been specifically mentioned it can be assumed that she was a practicing Physiotherapist. The husband is posted in Rajasthan. It is not possible for him to collect the information whether she was running a clinic or about her income. The trial Court had noted this and had declined the application for interim maintenance and rightly so. The Revisional Court based on assumptions wrongly allowed maintenance at the interim stage. It should have taken some affidavit from the wife. The wife had to explain how that fact was introduced in the FIR. There was a categoric assertion in the FIR that she was a Physiotherapist, it appears that the wife was hiding facts. She is capable of earning. The trial Court is yet to consider the case on merits. It will have to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance. Everyone has to earn for himself or herself or at least make an effort and would not sit idle. See Mamta Jaiswal versus Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100. The order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to mention that the petition filed in 2013 has still not been decided. The litigation can really corrode human relationship and it is the duty of the Court to curtail it. There is no need to hurry but procrastination should not be manifest. The Courts should be in complete control over the proceedings and should not permit the lis to be prolonged and if either party is delaying the proceedings, necessary steps should be taken.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
2.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-05
MAT APP (FC) 143 of 2014J.Pradeep NandrajogRupali Gupta vs Rajat GuptaHMA 24

MAINTENENCE DENIED TO WIFE : The respondent/husband while appearing before the Court acknowledges his responsibility to support his children and did not question the maintenance awarded to them. He assures the Court that he will ensure good education for his children and bear the additional burden in terms of increase in school fees, transport allowance etc. as and when necessity arises and brought to his notice. He has only objected to award of maintenance to his wife who is a Chartered Accountant and to this extent we have also not granted any relief to her.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
3.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-08-12
CRM No M-10226 of 2013J.Anita ChaudhrySamarjit Kalita vs Monika GuptaCrPC 125, 482

MAINTENANCE DENIED TO CAPABLE WIFE : Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife was an Architect and she was working before marriage and t here is no reason why she would stop working after marriage and she has not d is closed her income. It was urged that the wife had purchased Alto car in 2011 and the bank statement is available on record to show the number of deposits made from time to time. The counsel had also referred to the photographs to show that all was well and they had been visiting different places together on holidays before they parted.

Perusal of the record shows that the car was purchased in 2012 by Monika. It appears that the wife is not correctly showing her income. The wife is highly educated. She was working as an Architect i n Delhi. No record was produced to show that she had lost her job, therefore, the order passed by the Courts below regarding the maintenance granted to the wife is set aside.

The petition is partly allowed. The petitioner would continue to pay interim maintenance allowed to the child. The parties will have to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial Court would examine the evidence with respect to the income and decide strictly on merits without being influenced of any observations made herein.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
4.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH

on

2015-07-06
CRL.RC.(MD) No.142 of 2012J. S.NAGAMUTHU----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No maintenance 2 adulterous wife. If adultery continues AFTER divorce, maintenance denied AFTER divorce as well
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
5.

Maintenance
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA

on

2015-05-30
Petition No A-3017 of 2014Dr. Laxmi P. RaoS vs MHMA 24

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be misused for squeezing estranged Husband for Alimony

(1) Upon considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that the applicant-wife is not entitled to maintenance firstly because she has earlier filed the petition u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, because she has not approached the Court for maintenance from the time of separation in December 2012 till March 2015. Thirdly, she has not relied upon any of employment documents to show that she is no more in service. Fourthly, she is a highly qualified lady and she is further persuing her MBA.

(2) It is held in the ruling of MAMTA JAISWAL VS. RAJESH JAISWAL II(2000) DMC. 170 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT as follows : 'Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts. Spouse is well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts, is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that inspite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a dole to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her.'
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
6.

Maintenance
IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA

on

2015-05-27
Petition No A 932 of 2015Shri P.L. PalsingankarMrs A vs Mr TMAINTENANCE

No Visitation no Maintenance Judgment. Shared parenting

(1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu Vs Abhijit Kundu, AIR 2009 SC 732 has said that the welfare of a child is not to be measured merely be money or physical comfort, but the word welfare must be taken in its widest sense that the tie of affection cannot be disregarded. So considering this judgment referred above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has underlined the proposition that wealth of the husband has nothing to do with his competency to hold the custody and if that principle is applied here, then merely because the respondent is a busy doctor and having ability to generate more income cannot claim to be better parent.

(2) The concept of parenting plan, joint parenting, shared parenting, child support by way of parenting plan is a new concept not only to the parties, but also to the advocates practicing in the Family Court Mumbai. No doubt, it is also a new concept for the Family Court Judges also. The Hon'ble High Court has approved draft parenting plan proposed by the Family Court, Mumbai and that now plan is available on the website. So the concept of joint parenting plan has found favors with the Hon'ble High Court. With this recent report of the Law Commission, the legal fraternity all over India has made up its mind to accept this concept of joint parenting, but it will take time to digest this idea. Therefore, there will be problems in working this parenting plan for these parties. So in case of any disagreement or non compliance of any term, parties need not come to the court every time, rather they were asked to suggest the name of one mediator, who can find the way in case of disagreement. Parties have not suggested any name, I, therefore, direct that Ms Freni Italia, Psychiatric Social Worker from MUSKAAN, an undertaking of Tata Institute of Social Science is appointed as a mediator who shall sort out any issue regarding disagreement or non compliance and the parties shall be bound by that suggestion. The mediator may seek opinion of the court in writing. All these observations made hereinabove are incorporated in final parenting plan attached to this order as Annexture A. The parties shall comply with this parenting plan till the rights of the parties regarding custody access, visitation rights over the daughter Mukta are finally decided after a full trial.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
7.

Maintenance
Family Court Bandra

on

2015-02-20
Petetion No E-119 of 2013S.A.Morey----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 :: Qualified Spouse Can't Remain Idle and Claim Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
8.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2015-01-31
RFA 960 of 2003N. KumarSyed Basheer Malik vs Jameela BegumSection 96 of CPC

MAINTENANCE AFTER SETTLEMENT AND ONE TIME PAYMENT : Merely because, the Court while deciding the case on merits took note of the terms of the compromise and did not record a finding on merits in respect of the subject matter of compromise, that would not render the judgment and decree, a compromise decree. Admittedly, defendants-9 and 10 are not parties to the compromise. Their claim and contentions are decided on merits. As they are aggrieved by the said finding, they have a right to prefer an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Therefore the appeal filed is maintainable and we do not see any substance in the contention that the appeal is not maintainable.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
9.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2014-11-19
Cri Appeal No 2435 of 2014J.S.A.Bobde----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 -- Wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of application not from the date of order
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
10.

Maintenance
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

No Visitation Allowe ... No Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
11.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATKA at BANGALORE

on

2014-06-13
WRIT PETITION NO.21353 of 2014JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANAK.H.Shiva Kumar vs KUM. NANDINI K.SMAINTENANCE

SHARED EXPENDITURE OF KIDS : Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents. Perused the orders impugned and the material available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that both the courts below have not taken in to consideration the ability of petitioner's wife, who is the mother of respondents 1 and 2 herein to take care of them, at whose instance the criminal miscellaneous proceeding is initiated. When admittedly, she is a Senior Lecturer in a Government College, drawing more than Rs.50,000/- salary p.m., the allegation that the entire exercise, which is started by her in filing the criminal miscellaneous petition, is with an intention to cause harassment to the petitioner, cannot be disbelieved. However, this court would not like to go in to the merits of the case. But, in the instant case, even assuming that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that both the children are required to be maintained by the petitioner, this Court find that the responsibility of maintaining the children is not that of the petitioner exclusively, instead it is equal responsibility on the part of petitioner and his wife, who is representing them as guardian and next friend in this proceeding. Therefore, if Rs.4,000/- pm., is the amount which is required for the maintenance of one child, this Court feel it is required to modify the order passed by the courts below in fixing the liability at 50% on the wife and another 50% on the husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
12.

Maintenance
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-02-11
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
13.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2013-10-13
Crl Misc Petition No 19530 of 2013J. A.K. SikriBadshah vs Urmila BadshahCrPC 125

Second wife without taking divorce from first, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Thus, while interpreting a statute, the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. Supreme Court also said that under the Hindu Marriage Act the children who born on second marriage has also rights for maintenance claims.

A wife has the right to ask for the maintenance from her husband in the case of divorce under Section 125 of CrPC. If a person has treated that particular person as his wife, then that can be treated as a proof of their marriage.

In the case of, Mallika and Anr v. P Kulandi , it was held that in case the husband misrepresented his first wifes death, his second wife, would have the right to maintenance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
14.

Maintenance
In the Court of ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURTS

on

2011-04-15
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Maintenance claim based on Affidavit dismissed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
15.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM (M) 169 of 2009J. G.S. SistaniRani Sethi vs Sunil SethiHMA 24

MAINTENANCE TO HUSBAND GRANTED : (1) It is settled position of law that the law makes provision to strike a balance between the standard of living, status and luxuries that were enjoyed by a spouse in the matrimonial home and after separation. It has been held by the Apex Court that the needs of the parties, capacity to pay etc. must be taken into account while deciding quantum of maintenance. (2) The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
16.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM(M) 169 of 2009J.G.S.SistaniRani Sethi vs Sunil SethiHMA 24

HUSBAND GET MAINTENANCE : . Taking into consideration the documents, which have been filed on record of this court and the affidavit of the petitioner, the balance sheet, the Profit and Loss Account of the guest house and the income and expenditure of the guest house, it is clear that the petitioner has a substantial income from the business, which was at one time started jointly by both the petitioner and the respondent. The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term „support‟ is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
17.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2011-03-31
CM(M) 169 of 2009G.S. Sistani----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 :: Support to supouse in section HMA 24
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
18.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARAKHAND at NAINITAL

on

2011-03-17
Appeal From Order No 356 of 2010J. Prafulla C. PantSmt Pratiksha Arya vs Sh Deepak Kumar AryaHMA 24

MAINTENANCE ORDER QUASHED : HMA 24 applies equally to both spouses. It provides that where in any proceeding under the Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, it may, on the application of wife or the husband, order the other party to pay monthly maintenance during the proceeding initiated under the Act. Normally, in the Indian society, we see husband as an earning member in the family and wife dependent on him. But Section 24 takes note of all kinds of situation including the one in which husband is unable to maintain himself and dependent on his wife. As such, as far as maintainability of the application moved by the husband is concerned, the same was maintainable, seeking maintenance from the wife. (2) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we are of the view that though the application by the husband was maintainable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a fit case for granting maintenance to the husband by the wife. Therefore, without observing any opinion as to the final merits of the case pending before the trial court, this appeal is allowed, and the order dated 16.08.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 148 of 2009, is set aside so far it relates to the direction to the present appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of 2,500/- per month to her husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
19.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARANCHAl

on

2011-03-17
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Maintenence Judgement Quashed on the Ground that Status was not Considered by Train Court Before Granting
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
20.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2011-01-11
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Amendments in CrPC 125 at State level are INVALID
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
21.

Maintenance
HC of Madras

on

2010-11-12
Crp O P No 22949 of 2009J. G. M. Akbar Ali----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 - A wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled for maintenance. Under clause 4 of Sec.125 Cr.P.C., She is not entitled to receive such maintenance from her husband if, without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
22.

Maintenance
2010-10-25 :: HC of UTTARAKHAND

on

2010-10-25
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence if Wife is Working or If she get Job after getting Maintenance.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
23.

Maintenance
HC of UP

on

2009-12-03
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Lying Wife not Entitled for Maintenence
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
24.

Maintenance
HC of UTTARAKHAND at NAINITAL

on

2009-11-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenance u/s CrPC 125 if Wife Deserts Husband
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
25.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2009-03-23
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Maintenence Denied to Earning Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
26.

Maintenance
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2009-03-19
Criminal Misc No M-24684 of 2008J. Mohinder PalPoonam vs Mahender KumarCrPC 125

No Alimony to Women Who Desert her Husband without Sufficient Reason or Cruielty

The trial Magistrate, after framing issues, recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Except her statement, the petitioner failed to examine any other witness in support of her case to prove ill-treatment, dowry demand and other allegations made in the petition. Even the parents of the petitioner did not come forward to support her case. The petitioner failed to join her husband even after the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, was declined by the Court by holding that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent, rather the petitioner deserted her husband due to her own personal reasons. The petitioner did not take care of her sons, who are residing with the respondent. There is no allegation in the petition that she had ever asked the respondent for giving her the custody of the sons. The petitioner appears to be interested only in getting maintenance allowance and taking divorce from the respondent. The respondent is solely taking care of the children. To bring up two children single handedly is an onerous duty, which the respondent is performing and the petitioner is shirking. The petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that after she left her matrimonial house, she never tried to contact the respondent or her kids. In the case of Smt.Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. Failure of the petitioner-wife to prove sufficient grounds justifying her staying away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in declining the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being without any merit.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
27.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2008-10-22
S.B.Crl Misc Pet No 1347 of 2008J.G.S.SarrafSatish vs YoglataCrPC 125

MAINTENENCE AFTER RCR : (1) The decision in a suit against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is equivalent to a decision by a competent civil court that the wife had no sufficient reason for refusing to live with her husband. (2) It is true that second revision is not maintainable but this court can and must interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) The decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favor of the petitioner does not lose its legal value because the petitioner thereafter files an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
28.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

2008-10-22
S.B.Cri Misc Pet No 1347 of 2008G.S.Sarraf----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : If Husbands Wins Sec 9 (RCR) then Wife is not entitle for Maintenance in CrPC 125
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
29.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2008-10-01
Crl M (M) 1153 of 2008J. S.N. DhingraKavita Prasad vs ray PrasadCrPC 125

DO NOT WASTE QUALIFICATION AND DO SOCIAL WORK : Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
30.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-10-01
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Qualified MBBS wife asked to do some work
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
31.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

If SOUSE is earning no maintenence can be granted
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
32.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-18
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Explanation of Section 24 Of The HMA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
33.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

If Wife is CAPABLE of earning she is not entitled for MAINTENENCE
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
34.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2008-09-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : No Maintenence if Wife is Capable of EARNING
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
35.

Maintenance
In the Court of Mrs. Veena Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi

on

2008-07-28
CC No:2979/1/2007 of 2007Veena Rani----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Unemployed Men can't be forced to Pay Alimony
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
36.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2008-07-28
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : (1) Wife’s property, income sources must be considered in CrPC 125. (2) The order of maintenance if made to pay from date of application, need not record the reasons for doing so. In general it is payable from date of order.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
37.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2007-11-27
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Maintenence Denied to Earning Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
38.

Maintenance
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ROHINI COURT : DELHI

on

2007-09-19
M. No 28 of 2007MS. MADHU JAIN----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 -- No maintenance to qualified wife under 24 HMA
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
39.

Maintenance
HC of CALCUTTA

on

2007-06-07
of 2007J. P. N. Sinha----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 - No maintenance to wife, if wife staying separately without sufficient cause
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
40.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2007-06-05
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : Proceeding under CrPC 125 is CIVIL in nature
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
41.

Maintenance
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-04-17
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HC mentioned conditions when maintenance to be paid (1) Status of the parties, (2) Reasonable wants of the claimant, (3) The income and property of the claimant, (4) Number of persons to be maintained by the husb and, (5) Liabilities, if any, of the husband, (6) The amount required by the wife to live a simi lar life style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home keeping in view food, clothing , shelter, educational and medical needs of the wife and the children, if any, residing with the wife and (7) Payment capacity of the husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
42.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS

on

2006-11-04
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Husband has to PROVE his EARNING
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
43.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATKA

on

2005-08-22
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

No maintenence of WIfe is Earning
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
44.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2005-02-04
of 2005J. R.S. MohiteMrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Shri Dinesh Hastimal ParmarCrPC 125

MAINTENANCE DENIED : (1) No maintenance because wife wanted to live seprate (2) So far as question of maintenance is concerned, in view of our aforesaid finding, maintenance cannot be granted to the wife. In so far as the child is concerned, we find that an amount of Rs. 500/- which is awarded is too meagre looking to the present requirements of a growing child. The evidence indicates that the husband had sufficient money to purchase his own flat. He cannot be said to be a person of no means. No doubt, he contended that he had borrowed monies from his friends to purchase the new flat but he candidly admitted that he had not taken any such contention about borrowing of monies from is friends in his petition nor had he led any evidence in this regard. Taking an over all view of the matter, we feel that ends of justice will be met if an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month is granted as maintenance to the child. The husband will have an option of making lumpsum payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the maintenance of his son and if he makes such lumpsum payment in full, then his liability to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month will cease from the date of full payment. He will also have an option to make a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the first instance and if he does so then the maintenance payable to the son will stand reduced to Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of such payment. The maintenance amount/amount in lieu of maintenance as aforesaid would be payable to the son till the son attains the age of majority.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
45.

Maintenance
SC of INDIA

on

2003-08-26
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence to wife if she FAILED to prove her ALLIGATIONS
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
46.

Maintenance
HC of MADRAS

on

2003-01-10
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Alimony can be Granted to Earning SPOUSE too
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
47.

Maintenance
HC of MADYAPRADESH

on

2002-03-24
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

HMA 24 : Maintenence Denied to Well Educated and Capable Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
48.

Maintenance
HC of MADYA PRADESH

on

2000-03-24
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

CrPC 125 : No Maintenence to well QUALIFIED and CAPABLE wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
49.

Maintenance
HC of RAJASTHAN

on

1999-01-22
of 1999J.G.L.GuptaBheekha Ram vs Goma DeviCrPC 125

NO MAINTENANCE FOR DESERTING WIFE : (1) The learned Magistrate has rightly held that the respondent-wife had not been able to establish the allegations of cruelty or demand of owry and that on her own admission she was living in the house constructed by her husband. On the admission of Goma Devi that for about 14 years the husband used to give his entire income to her and he was maintaining the family and that her husband was always ready and willing to keep her and her children and there was not love lost between them, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in holding that there was no negligence by the husband and the wife was herself responsible for the trouble in the marital relations. (2) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it is obvious was influenced by the fact that the husband has filed a divorce petition. By this, he presumed that the husband Bheekha Ram was not willing to continue with the marital relations. In my opinion, this could not be the valid ground or interfering in the order of the learned Magistrate. (3) The matter was to be decided on the basis of the material available on the record of the case under Section 125, Cr. P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
50.

Maintenance
HC of W.BENGAL

on

1997-08-14
ALT Cri 17 DMC 487 of 1997J.Dibyendu Bhushan----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Double Maintenance will NOT be justice, equity and good conscience. HMA 24 and CrPC 125 amounts to be adjusted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
51.

Maintenance
HC oF MAHARASTRA

on

1994-08-11
Equivalent citations: II (1995) DMC 589 of 1995J.U.BhatSaroj Bai vs Jai KumarCrPC 125

DATE OF ORDER : Shobha Bai's case proceeds on the basis that normally or ordinarily an order should take effect from the date of the order and therefore, specific reasons must be indicated in the order in support of a contrary direction. Section 125(2) does not speak of either reasons or special reasons unlike Section 125(3) of the Code which requires reasons for the sentence awarded in the case of conviction for an offence punishable with death or alternatively imprisonment for life or imprisonment for the term of years and special reasons to be recorded in the case of sentence of death.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
52.

Maintenance
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

1991-03-15
of 1991J. S.R. BhargavaAnita Rani vs Rakeshpal SinghCrPC 125, 127

MAINTENANCE FROM DATE OF ORDER : It is true that under Section 125(2) Cr. P.C. maintenance can be allowed from the date of the order, or if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance. Allowing of maintenance from the date of application is an exception to the general rule of maintenance being payable from the date of order, for making an exception there must be reasons. It do not find any specific reason for allowing the maintenance right from the date of application.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
53.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

1991-01-04
CriLJ 1028 of 1992J.P.C.PathakKrishna Jain vs Dharam RajCrPC 125

DATE OF ORDER : In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the date of order in Section 125(2) means the date of order of the Magistrate and not the date of revisional order. Gafoor Ahmed's case so far it directs payment of allowance from the date of order of the revisional Court, is not good law. The answers to the questions referred are: (1) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order. (2) In the absence of reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of order. (3) The date of order in Section 125(2) means the date of Magistrate's order and not the revisional order.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
54.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

1990-07-27
Crl Writ Pet No 38 of 1989Ashok Yeshwant vs Suparna Ashok SamantCrPC 125,127

ARREARS DEPOSIT BEFORE APPEAL : Sec 127(2)- Application by husband for modification of maintenance amount - Husband cannot be directed to deposit the amount of arrears of maintenance as a condition precedent to proceed with his application.

Sec 125(3), 127- Recovery proceedings u/s 125(3) are independent proceedings from the proceedings u/s 127 CrPC

Sec 125(3)- Arrears of maintenance – Recovery – Coercive Process – Before taking recourse to coervice process opportunity to show cause must be given
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
55.

Maintenance
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

1985-10-09
Equivalent citations: 1986 (1) BomCR 358, (1985) 87 BOMLR 561 of 1986B K PatilMurlidhar Chintaman Waghmare vs Smt. Pratibha Murlidhar WaghmareCrPC 125

If wife looses maintenane in civil case, she looses right to file sec 125 and claim maintenance

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (A.C.) Pune, who heard the application, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent was able to maintain herself and that she had no just and sufficient reasons to reside separately from the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate further held that the Petitioner had offered to maintain the 1st Respondent which offer she had refused. Consequently, the application was dismissed without any order as to costs. It may be mentioned here that the 1st Respondent had earlier filed a similar maintenance application which was withdrawn by her. Thereafter she also filed a civil suit for declaration that she was entitled to reside separately and for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The said suit was dismissed on merits. No appeal was filed by her against the said order. The learned Magistrate unfortunately did not refer to the said civil suit in his judgment.

5. The learned Additional Judge, while allowing the Revision filed against the order of the learned Magistrate, granted maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month, and observed that the principles of res judicata or double jeopardy would not come into play as the present proceedings were of a summary nature. According to me, the learned Sessions Judge has missed a vital point in coming to the said conclusion. The proceedings in the civil Court are substantial whereas the proceedings under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are of a summary nature. Once the civil Court of competent jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance, the criminal Court, under Section 125, cannot sit in appeal over the said decision. This itself, without anything more, is sufficient to set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even S. 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates cancellation of the order passed under S. 125 after the decision of the civil Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
56.

Maintenance
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

1980-02-13
Equivalent citations: CriLJ 110 of 1981J.M.PatilHaunsabai vs Balkrishna KrishnaCrPC 125

CrPC 125 SHOULD PROVIDE MAINTENENCE TO WIFE WHO IS UNABLE TO MAIONTAINHERSELF : 15. It cannot also be said that the expressions 'unable to maintain' used by the Legislature in its wisdom were superfluous or they were of no importance as was tried to be maintained by Mr. Thipperudrappa. I do not think the Legislature would have unnecessarily used such expression when they were not in the old Code. In view of the various social measures and the changed conditions of the society, the Legislature in its wisdom has probably thought it necessary that maintenance to a wife as provided under Section 125, Cr.P.C. should be provided only to a wife who is unable to maintain herself or has no sufficient means to maintain herself. The law as it stands has to be enforced, though it may in some cases work hardship on the wives. The petitioner herein having failed to aver positively in her petition and substantiate it from the witness box that she was unable to maintain herself, the petition will have to fail.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
57.

Maintenance
HC of U.P. at ALLAHABAD

on

1976-03-25
Equivalent citations: CriLJ 1664 of 1976J.B.KatjuManmohan Singh vs Smt Mahindra KaurCrPC 125, 482

3. Under Section 125(1)(a), Cr., P. C. 1973 maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It may be pointed out that this is a-departure from Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 wherein every wife, whether she was able or was not able to maintain herself, was entitled to maintenance if she was neglected or not maintained by her husband. As it was not alleged by the opposite party in her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 and it was also not stated by her in her statement recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun that she was unable to maintain herself and no finding has been recorded by the C. J, M., Dehradun or the Sessions Judge, Dehradun that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself, the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are clearly illegal.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
58.

Maintenance
HC of UP, ALLAHABAD

on

1976-03-25
***** of *********----- vs -----MAINTENANCE

Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW