Law relating to Maintenance


You will find here law relating to Maintenance.

 

O.P. SHEORAN & ASSOCIATES

(Law Firm)

111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA

SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Website:- www.stlegal.in

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9950984566

Practicing at: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law relating to Maintenance 

K. SHAIKSHAVALI Vs. S.K. SAKEERA

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s.125(1) – Grant of maintenance – Validity – Petitioner-husband admits in his evidence that he is B.Ed. Graduate and earlier he was working as teacher at Nandi English Medium School and getting salary of Rs. 8,000 P.M. – He has produced Ex. R.I to show he has left the job at Nandi English Medium School – But he has not examined author of Ex. R.I – However, Family Court has accepted that he left the job at Nandi English Medium School – Evidence on record shows that petitioner-husband has agricultural land standing in his name – Trial Court holding, petitioner being a graduate of B.Ed, and owning agricultural land has no difficulty to pay Rs.5,000 P.M. towards maintenance of his wife awarded Rs.5,000 P.M. – Held, considering cost of maintenance, educational qualification and land holding of husband, Family Court is justified in awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000 P.M. to wife – Petitioner-husband had not shown bona fide in depositing Rs.35,000 towards arrears of maintenance as ordered by this Court – Accordingly, petition is dismissed both on ground of non-compliance of order of this Court as well as on merits.

 

P. RAMPRASAD Vs. SINDOORI R.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.24 – Grant of interim maintenance – Validity – Petitioner-husband is a practicing Advocate, appointed as a Central Government Standing Counsel, having put in 10 years at the Bar, and represents several multinational companies as well as several highly esteemed clients, and is owner of immovable properties both residential and vacant land which command a high market value in view of urbanization of Bangalore, are not in dispute – Family Court having taken into consideration aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that respondent-wife is not employed and has no income of her own, keeping with social status of parties, passed order for interim maintenance and litigation expenses – Held, present petition filed by husband challenging order granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses to respondent-wife to the tune of Rs. 15,000 and Rs.5,000 respectively is without merit – Petition dismissed.

 

JAGDISH SINGH SANKHWAR Vs. ARCHANA

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.24 – Second wife – Grant of interim maintenance – Validity – In written statement filed before Court below, respondent/wife has specifically pleaded that petitioner/husband has solemnized marriage with respondent by suppressing the fact that he had already solemnized marriage earlier – Admittedly, main case in which impugned order granting interim maintenance is passed is already dismissed – Said order is affirmed by High Court – Interlocutory order i.e., impugned order granting interim maintenance, stood merged in final order passed by Court below – Final order is upheld by this Court – For these cumulative reasons, there is no justification for interference – Petition dismissed.

 

JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS & ANR. Vs. HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS & ANR.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 and 354(6) – Maintenance – Effective date – Reasoned order – Held that every final order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. must contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision – Section 125 and Section 354 (6) must be read together – Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts – For good reason, evident from its order, the Court may choose either date – It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of the order or the date of the application in matters of maintenance – Thus, as per Section 354 (6) of the Cr.P.C., the Court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities.

 

SUNITA KACHWAHA & ORS. Vs. ANIL KACHWAHA

The High Court has set aside the award of maintenance to the wife on the ground that the separate stay of the wife due to alleged dowry torture is not justified and that she has left the matrimonial house without any justifiable ground. …. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. …. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. …. the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance.

 

P.ILLESH YADAV Vs. P.SUVARNA

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Enhanced – Maintenance granted is not adequate – Enhancement of maintenance – It is not in dispute that appellant/husband is employed in B.S.N.L and drawing fairly good amount as salary – Respondent/wife has no income whatsoever – Appellant/husband is under obligation to maintain her – By any standard, Rs.1500/ – per month is insufficient for an individual to lead life with basic necessities – Hence, enhanced maintenance from Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.4000/- per month – A.S.No.3433 of 2003 is dismissed and F.C.A.Nos.179 of 2008 and 306 of 2012 are allowed – Appeals disposed of.

 

VIJAY SINGH Vs. KAMLA @ KALIA DEVI

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125 (4) and 125 (1)(b) Expln. – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Maintenance – Divorced wife and not remarried – Entitled to maintenance – Held that existence of sufficient cause on basis of which respondent/wife could legitimately refuse to live with petitioner/husband is not relevant for present case – Admittedly, respondent is a divorced wife and she has not remarried – Marriage ties between parties do not subsist – Since then, she is under no obligation to live with petitioner – But though marital relations came to an end by divorce granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent continues to be ‘wife’ within meaning of Section 125, Cr.P.C. on account of Explanation (b) to Sub-section (1) – Petition dismissed.

 

MASRAT BEGUM Vs. ABDUL RASHID KHAN & ANOTHER

J. & K. Criminal P. C. (23 of 1989 Smvt.), S. 488 – Maintenance – Interim maintenance to Muslim women of J & K – Held: The statutory provisions of Sections 488 to 490, Cr. P.C. do not contemplate the grant of interim maintenance, and the same has been developed by law of precedence. The concept so developed is strictly restricted by two complementary rigours; first, the rigour of the principles governing the grant of interim relief, and second the personal law, subject to which alone the interim maintenance can be granted. Viewed thus, in order to justify the grant of interim maintenance, the applicant has to establish prima facie case, that she is entitled to maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C. In order to arrive at such a conclusion the Magistrate is required to have some semblance of material on record in the shape of evidence.

 

BHAWANI SHANKAR DAHAL Vs. GANGA MAYA DAHAL & ANOTHER

Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974) S. 125 – Maintenance to wife – Upheld – Revision against allowing maintenance to wife – Plea of no source of income – Land property in name of husband – No question from wife if she left matrimonial home at his own- Held: The factum of marriage and daughter from their wedlock is not in dispute in this case. Even if husband is not earning anything, it is his duty to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain her and children also. The amount of Rs.6,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. Petition dismissed.