#Maintenance Archives

15 Nov

Wife Can’t Claim Maintenance From In Laws When She Is Capable Of Maintaining Herself: High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Prime Legal

Blog #husband, #law, #Legal News, #Maintenance

Title: Dhanna Sahu v Smt. Sitabai Sahu

Citation: 2023:CGHC:28158-DB

Coram: Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri & Justice Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Decided On: 08/11/2023

Introduction:

The present Appeal is against the judgment dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bemetara in Civil MJC No.5/2022 wherein the application filed by the daughter-in-law against her father-in-law claiming maintenance was allowed and an amount of Rs.1500/- was directed to be paid. The father-in-law is in Appeal before this Court.

Facts:

Sitabai Sahu is the daughter-in- law of the appellant. She was married to Virendra Sahu, son of the appellant and 2 children were born. Said Virendra Sahu died in harness on 28.8.2021. Thereafter dispute arose in between the parties and the children were kept in the custody of the father-in-law i.e. the appellant. It was stated that the appellant has affluent means. He has 6 acres of land. Apart from that, he was in the avocation of doctorship, whereas the daughter-in-law was unable to maintain herself. Stating various grounds, maintenance was claimed.

The father-in-law opposed the application for maintenance and stated that his daughter-in-law has sufficient means to survive. However, no document has been placed before the Court to show that she is unable to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother. The learned family Court after evaluating the material placed before it has directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the daughter- in-law.

Daughter-in-law has filed the application prior to this litigation for custody of the children wherein she has deposed that she has enough earning and would be able to maintain her children, apart from the property. Bare reading of the statement would show that the order itself is bad and no justification can be attached to it.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said argument on submission that the statement made in the prior proceeding cannot be agitated time and again in the subsequent proceeding and position of the parties is to be evaluated in the subsequent adjudication and as such, the findings arrived at by the family Court are well merited, which do not call for any interference.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In her statement, she has stated that she wants to keep the children with her, as she is doing the private job and she has sufficient income and her parental part i.e. father and mother have also sufficient means. This statement when was confronted in the cross-examination of the respondent, she admitted to have made such statement in a proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, while the proceeding was drawn before the family Court for custody of the children. She has stated that she was working in a private company and was earning enough and mother and father were also financially well.

Therefore, the statement itself made by the respondent cut across the requirement which is mandatory under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. There is no answer to the aforesaid issue as to under what circumstances, the statement was made in a judicial proceeding in earlier round of litigation and the statement having been confronted and admitted by the appellant would hold the field to adjudicate the issue. Hence the order dated 8.2.2023 was set aside by the court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

10 Nov

A Husband Can’t Be Exempted From His Duty To Maintain His Wife Just Because He Lost His Job: High Court Of Karnataka

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Duty, #law, #Legal Report, #Maintenance, #Marriage

Citation: WP No. 20801 Of 2022

Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice M.Nagaprasanna

Decided On: 25th Day Of October, 2023

Introduction:

This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the PRL. Judge, family court at Mysuru in m.c.145/2022 dated 03.09.2022 on I.A.II vide annexure-e. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 03.09.2022 passed in M.C.No.145/2022 on an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act for short) seeking interim maintenance from the hands of the husband.

Facts:

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is wife. The two get married on 02.03.2020. It transpires that the relationship between the husband and the wife flounders and on floundering of such relationship, the parties were before the Family Court in M.C.No.145/2022. The issue in the lis does not concern the proceedings before the concerned Court. The wife files an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at the hands of the husband and also files an affidavit of assets and liabilities, as is required in law. The concerned Court grants an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner before this Court.

petitioner contends that the husband has lost his job and the Court comes to conclude that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is earned by the husband erroneously and therefore, in the light of him not having a job as on date cannot be directed to be paid a maintenance of sum of Rs.10,000/-, which has become difficult for him to even consider such payment.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

The submission of the learned counsel that the husband has lost his job and cannot be directed to pay maintenance is noted only to be rejected, as the husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife. Any interference of the order that is impugned would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG. Considering that the petition of the husband was dismissed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

17 Oct

“Presumption of Maintenance and Adultery: A Legal Perspective – Himachal Pradesh High Court”

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #Himachal high court, #Maintenance

Title: “Smt. vs. ” (Case No. Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2023)

Date of Decision: 13th October 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Introduction

The case revolves around a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order issued by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The order, dated 11th January 2023, pertains to an application for interim maintenance filed by the petitioner in the context of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner sought the grant of interim maintenance following allegations of harassment and desertion by her husband.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Smt. (name redacted), filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She claimed that she had married the respondent on 29th October 2019, but shortly thereafter, he began harassing her.

The petitioner accused her husband of defamation and making false allegations of adultery against her, which ultimately led to her eviction from the matrimonial home on 18th October 2020. The respondent allegedly did not provide any financial support.

According to the petitioner, the respondent, working as a Patwari, had no other financial obligations but refused to maintain her. She filed an application under the second proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month.

In response, the respondent contested the petitioner’s claims. He argued that the petitioner was well-qualified and had sufficient means to support herself. He further alleged that she had deserted him and was engaged in adulterous conduct.

The petitioner, in her rejoinder, denied the respondent’s allegations and pointed out incidents of domestic violence. She noted that she had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was pending adjudication.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim maintenance on the grounds that she was living in adultery, was well-qualified, and thus capable of maintaining herself.

The judgment reviewed the definition of adultery under Section 497 IPC, which requires sexual intercourse with someone known or believed to be another person’s spouse without their consent. The Court concluded that the mere existence of WhatsApp chats was insufficient to establish adultery.

The judgment emphasized that no material evidence had been presented to demonstrate the petitioner’s independent source of income or livelihood, notwithstanding her qualifications. It further reiterated that laws like Section 125 of Cr.P.C. exist to prevent destitution of wives and family members when they lack the means for self-maintenance. The case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for a fresh decision, allowing both parties the opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

In summary, the judgment highlights the need for proper evidence and due process in determining maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C., underscoring the welfare-oriented nature of such laws. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. exist to prevent destitution of wives and family members when they lack the means for self-maintenance: Himachal Pradesh HC dismisses petition

Written by- Tarishi Verma

Click here to view judgement

21 Aug

Diabetes Is Not A Valid Excuse To Avoid Payment Of Maintenance To Wife Or Children: Karnataka High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court, #Maintenance

Case Title: Ananth Kumar K G And Yogita S @ Yogitha Ananth Kumar

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12802 OF 2023

Date of Order: 08-08-2023

CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

Introduction
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition filed by the husband questioning the order of the family court directing him to provide his wife and children maintenance of Rs 10,000 monthly.

Facts
The petitioner-husband is appealing to the writ court to challenge the order dated 21.04.2023 issued by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Shivamogga. The order favored the respondent-wife’s
application in I.A.No.1, which was filed in her ongoing MC No.6/2022 case. As a result, a monthly maintenance award of Rs.10,000/- was granted. The petitioner’s lawyer strongly opposes this decision, contending that his client cannot afford to pay the specified amount regularly. The petitioner’s argument is that the respondent-wife is employed and doesn’t require maintenance, even though she has custody of a minor son from their marriage. Additionally, the petitioner’s lawyer asserts that the awarded amount is excessively high.

Court Analysis

In this case, a single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit rejected the petitioner’s argument that he couldn’t pay the monthly maintenance for his minor child due to suffering from diabetes and related ailments. The court stated that many people worldwide suffer from such ailments and medical advancements make them manageable. The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that the payment was excessive, pointing out that the wife is gainfully employed. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the wife had a means of livelihood for herself and the child. The court emphasized that legal and ethical obligations require able-bodied individuals to support their dependent family members, as reflected in various legislations like Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

11 Aug

The Karnataka High Court Ruled Section 125 Of The Crpc Does Not Necessitate A Wife To Demonstrate A ‘Valid Reason For Living Apart’ From Her Husband.

Prime Legal

Blog #CrPc, #Karnataka High Court, #Maintenance

Title: Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh

Case No: RPFC No. 100033/2020

Date of Order: 31-07-2023

CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE C M POONACHA

INTRODUCTION

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that establishing a valid reason for living apart is not necessary in maintenance cases under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C).

FACTS OF THE CASE

Smt. Renuka (“Petitioner/Wife”) and Sri Venkatesh (“Respondent/Husband”) are in a marital relationship. The Wife initiated legal proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to request financial support (maintenance) from her Husband. On November 14, 2018, the Trial Court rejected the petition, stating that the wife did not provide any evidence indicating her willingness to live with the Husband or proving that the Husband deliberately neglected her maintenance.

Subsequently, the Wife appealed this decision to the High Court.

According to Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents), if an individual with sufficient financial means neglects or refuses to provide support, a first-class Magistrate, upon establishing this neglect or refusal, can order that person to pay a monthly allowance for the upkeep of their wife, child, father, or mother. The amount of the allowance is determined by the Magistrate and must be paid to the designated recipient as directed by the Magistrate.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Referring to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the Court stated that a person can seek maintenance if they can show neglect or refusal to provide support. The Court emphasized that maintenance cases do not require proving a sufficient reason for living separately. The Court explained that Section 125 is designed for summary proceedings, focusing on demonstrating negligence or refusal to provide maintenance, without delving into reasons for living apart.

The Court acknowledged the unquestionable marital relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent. However, it held that the reasons for their separation cannot be addressed in maintenance proceedings and should not be decided upon.

The Court rejected the husband’s claim that he did not neglect his responsibility to provide for his wife and children, noting that this claim cannot stand since they are living separately, and the husband cannot insist that they live with him to receive maintenance.

Highlighting that Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are of a summary nature and do not conclusively determine the parties’ rights and obligations, the Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision. The Family Court was directed to consider the parties’ claims on their merits and determine the appropriate amount of maintenance to be paid.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

1 2