Judgements Search Made Easy

Find Judgements on all Sections and Judgements by all Courts

Filter Judgements by Category and Subcategory.

Judgement By Sections or Articles

Select some options

Judgement Court

Select some options

Judgement Year

Select Judgment Year

Judgement Bench

Select Bench/Beches

Judgements

Abhilasha vs Parkash

We, thus, accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as a preposition of law, an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act, 1956.

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another

Hence, in our view from the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Either of the parties aggrieved by the order of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. can approach the civil court for declaration of status as the order passed under Section 125 does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr

When the appellant's case is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid legal position, it is sufficiently clear that the appellant has succeeded in proving that she was the legally married wife of the respondent with three children out of which one had expired while the other two who are major and well-settled. It has further been proved that the respondent-husband started deserting the appellant-wife after almost 25 years of marriage and in order to avert the claim of maintenance, a story of previous marriage was set up for which he failed to furnish any proof much less clear proof.

Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.

We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term `wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.

Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhay & Anr.[1] In that case, it was held that a Hindu lady who married after coming into force Hindu Marriage Act, with a person who had a living lawfully wedded wife cannot be treated to be “legally wedded wife” and consequently her claim for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.

D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal

However, the question has also be to be examined from the point of view of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(a) of the Act states : "2(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent";

Sanjeev Kapoor vs Chandana Kapoor

The High Court did not commit an error in rejecting the application filed by appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of the High Court given under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The Family Court in passing order dated 05.01.2019 has done substantial justice in reviving the maintenance application of the wife which need no interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ Vs. NANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ

An order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition(C) No.169 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017 wherein the High Court affirmed the interim order passed by the Family Court in and by which the appellant-husband has been directed to remove himself from his own home and not to visit there until the divorce petition is finally decided is under challenge.