Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that Supreme Court has emphasised on the broad interpretation of the term “wife” under Section 125 of CrPC and the presumption of marriage in cases of long cohabitation.
“The Court shall take only the present income of the husband and wife into consideration for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children.”
Even if the proceeding was ex-parte against the petitioner, still the required affidavit was to be filed by the wife so as to find out her assets/liabilities/source of income etc.
A person who has already having been sent to civil imprisonment for a period of three months, cannot be sent to civil prison again in execution of the same decree for a second time.
The Calcutta High Court stated that the documents presented by the petitioner which mention her as wife are mere declarations, subject to proof, if challenged.
Referring to the evidence produced by the second wife and her readiness for the DNA test, the Bombay High Court was of the view that the husband could not be allowed to deny maintenance to the second wife.
“The object of Section 125 CrPC is Social Justice and also to ensure the dignity of individual as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India.”
In the case at hand, the husband’s contradictory statements about his employment and dependency on others for income created doubt about his actual income, led to affirmation of maintenance order.
“The Court stated that it is pained to note that in such acrimonious proceedings, the parents tend to make their children their pawns, thereby sidelining their children's happiness in order to vindicate themselves.”
The object of maintenance proceeding would be that one party having no sufficient means to satisfy his/her daily needs and has no source of income to procure bread and other needs which are necessary to maintain one's life, if the same is to award after 10 years of the prayer then the very purpose would be frustrated and defeated.
“The attempt should be to assimilate the required details and reach the correct conclusion at the earliest, rather than mulling over mundane objections.”
Supreme Court: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, confirming the Family Court’s order
Supreme Court: In a complex case where both the parties claimed to be disabled to get the matrimonial case transferred to the
Telangana High Court: Sathish Reddy, J., while addressing a maintenance case, expressed that, the wife’s earning capacity cannot be a bar from
Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati J. modified the impugned order and enhanced the compensation to Rs 75000/- (for wife) and Rs
TOP STORY OF THE MONTH Marital Rape Split Verdict on Criminalisation of Marital Rape| Can a Husband be labelled as a rapist?
Gauhati High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to maintenance of wife, Rumi Kumari Phukan, J., expressed that, the statutory right
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., observed that, the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and those under Section
Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., expressed that, a father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status