HC of MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
CrPC 125 : No maintenance 2 adulterous wife. If adultery continues AFTER divorce, maintenance denied AFTER divorce as well
Date:6-Jul-15 | J. S.NAGAMUTHU
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnMUZfdldobjFKVVU&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Family Court Mumbai
HMA 24 — Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be misused for squeezing estranged Husband for Alimony
Date:***** | Dr. Laxmi P. Rao
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnekZGWlg1UUN3R1k&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Family Court Bandra
CrPC 125 :: Qualified Spouse Can’t Remain Idle and Claim Maintenence
Date:20-Feb-15 | S.A.Morey
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LneVpEbmV3MEk5eW8&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
CrPC 125 — Wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of application not from the date of order
Date:19-Nov-14 | J.S.A.Bobde
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnUk9iZlB6M1hTRTA&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MUMBAI
No Visitation Allowe … No Maintenence
Date:18-Jul-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnaUpSLWdHVHpxaTg&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of KARNATKA
Maintenance divide in equally in working parents
Date:13-Jun-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnR1pvTlVfVmpGVW8&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MUMBAI
Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled.
Date:11-Feb-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnMm5qVjVXUFNrcFk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
In the Court of ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURTS
Maintenance claim based on Affidavit dismissed
Date:15-Apr-11
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnYzcxcDB5VTVQVnM&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI
HMA 24 :: Support to supouse in section HMA 24
Date:31-Mar-11
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnN3J4UjY0enBSelk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of UTTARANCHAL
Maintenence Judgement Quashed on the Ground that Status was not Considered by Train Court Before Granting
Date:17-Mar-11
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnYUltd2tYYmR4WUk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Rajasthan
Maintenance to wife is not allowed if she can not prove that husband has neglected her. Also maintenance is not allowed if wife lefts her matrimonial home on her own
Description:Goma Devi has not been able to establish that she had been neglected by her husband. As a matter of fact she is living with her parents of her own accord. She is, therefore, not entitled for maintenance allowance for herself. However, she is entitled to maintenance allowance for her two kids who are living with her Bheekha Ram, has not come out with the case that he was giving maintenance allowance to Goma Devi for the children. It is fault of the children when they are living with their mother. The father is bound to provide maintenance to them.
Date: 22-Jan-99 | G Gupta
Bheekha Ram vs Goma Devi And Ors. on 22 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: I (2000) DMC 76, 1999 WLC Raj UC 260
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0Lnb0hfWTc3UGxsTTg&export=download” title=”16_Bheekha_Ram_vs_Goma_Devi_And_Ors._on_22_January,_1999.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY
No maintenance to wife under CRPC 125 if she can not prove Cruelty
Date: 8-Apr-08 | V.R. KINGAONKAR,
Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale,
Age : 35 years, Occu.Service,
R/o. Mental Hospital Servant Quarters,
Yeroda,Pune District Pune – 6 …Petitioner
Versus
Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnS3l3cW5QSEo2ZDg&export=download” title=”20_No main to wife under crpc 125 if she can not prove cruelty.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Gujarat
No maintenance to wife parallely in DV and 125
Date: 21-Oct-10 AKIL KURESHI
MR HEMANT B RAVAL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnenZyaExRQnpSR2c&export=download” title=”21_R_SCR.A_2080_2010_o_1.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Madhya Pradesh
No maintenance to capable wife
Description:In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. 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 life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of
providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of
sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the 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 life 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. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well
qualified woman possessing qualification like M. Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi
Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady
can remain without service ? It really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with
sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite 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, can not be permitted to sit idle and to 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
Date: *****
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnZ2s1S1RLRFk5NDQ&export=download” title=”28_Smt._Mamta_Jaiswal_vs_Rajesh_Jaiswal_on_24_March,_2000.PDF” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi
Multiple Maintenance are not allowed
Description:It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary relief on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the woman has already movedCourt and her right of maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , for any enhancement of maintenance already granted ,she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance. This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
Date:
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnS2JkSzRVUDgwWEk&export=download” title=”31_SND30082010CRLMM1302010.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Multiple Maintenance are not allowed
Description:There can be no dispute with the proposition that a wife can avail of maintenance in the course of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or it can have the cake in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There also can be no dispute with the proposition that the amount awarded in the course of either of the proceedings in favour of the wife has to be set off against the amount awarded to her in the other
proceedings. There is no law which would entitle the wife to resist the indicated set off in the matter of maintenance awarded in her favour. In the present case, maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- has
been awarded by the criminal Court in Court in favour of the respondentwife and the only child of the parties,however, in the course of the divorce proceedings, the learned Trial Judge awarded maintenance pendent-lite at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand disposed of with a direction that the amount awarded to the respondentwife for self and only child of the parties shall be set off against the amount awarded in favour of the respondent-wife in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Date: 23-Feb-10 | S D Anand
Gian Chand Vs Dilipreet Kaur
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnZTJHMUlEak5BMmc&export=download” title=”32_document.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
Multiple /Parallel Maintenance are not allowed
Description:The non-applicants could not be allowed to ride two horses at a time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different Coruts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. when they had already chosen the alternative remedy in Reg. C.S. No. 227/86. It is well settled law that the judgment of Civil Court shall prevail over the judgment of Criminal Court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different Courts.
Date: 17-Jul-91 Bench: B Wahane
Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar vs Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnZWdBbkZEYlYxMVE&export=download” title=”33_parallel maintenance not allowed_Bombay High Court.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Gujarat
Multiple /Parallel Maintenance are not allowed
Description:Wife had prayed for interim maintenance before the learned Magistrate in proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Such prayer was granted. Husband challenged the said order dated 19.12.2009. Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. When initial order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was already passed by the competent court which has also attended finality by way of interim arrangement, unless and until strong reasons, learned Magistrate could not have granted maintenance to the wife, In the event of change in the circumstances, it is always open to the wife to seek modification of the maintenance order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, committed no error in passing the impugned order.
Date: 21-Oct-10 CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
HEMLATABEN MAHESHBHAI CHAUHAN – Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s)
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnYldzaUdQTU1yWUE&export=download” title=”34_gujarat high court_no parallel maintenance.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi
Multiple /Parallel Maintenance are not allowed
Description:It must beconsidered that for granting maintenance, a party can either approach the Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act soon after commission of Domestic Violence or under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The Jurisdiction for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction and if maintenance has been granted under Section 125 Cr. P.C. after taking into account the entire material placed before the Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another MM under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate the issue of maintenance. The law does not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate same issue separately . If adjudication has already been done by a Court of MM under Section 125 Cr. P.C., re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM underDomestic Violence Act. I , therefore consider that learned MM was right in allowing maintenance only to the tune of ` 6,000/-p.m.
Date: 27-Sep-10 | SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
RENU MITTAL…Petitioner
Through: Mr Shiv Charan Garg with Mr.
Imran Kha, Advs.
Versus
ANIL MITTAL & ORS. …Respondents
Through: Mr O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for the State
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnNXg0OE5Lck9hNzQ&export=download” title=”36_SND27092010CRLR6332010.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
Multiple /Parallel Maintenance are not allowed
Description:No manner of doubt is left about the legal position that unless the Civil Court finally adjudicates the question of maintenance in the matrimonial proceedings, neither the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for award of maintenance is barred during the pendency of civil
proceedings nor the right of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be denied if during the pendency of
matrimonial proceedings, the wife is able to make out the case in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
that she has been neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband and has no independent financial
source of her own to maintain herself. Any order passed by the Criminal Court awarding maintenance in the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be subject to the adjudication on the question of maintenance
by the Civil Court and the wife cannot take advantage of the two orders of maintenance passed by the Civil
Court as well as the Criminal Court. After the final adjudication is made by the Civil Court on the question of maintenance, the wife is entitled to maintenance as ordered in the civil proceedings, till such time the order of
maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be faulted.
Date: 13-Sep-95 | R Lodha
Gomaji vs Smt. Yashoda And Anr. on 13/9/1995
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnQjR1TzhLUEZGbGs&export=download” title=”40_Gomaji_vs_Smt._Yashoda_And_Anr._on_13_September,_1995.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi High Court
Qualified wife working earlier but not now on her own will no maintanence
Date: 14 May, 2012 | Pratibha Rani
Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr
[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B6yl7nq7vj7LVkxvbUJTbGR5cG8&export=download” title=”Qualified worrked earlier now not Damanpreet_Kaur_vs_Indermeet_Juneja_&_Anr._on_14_May,_2012.PDF” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” style=”download”]