Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“With regard to the maintenance of the child, this court is of the view that in the presence of biological father of the child, the stepfather cannot be asked to maintain the child.”
“The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.”
The impugned order held that the fathers of the parties were real brothers and so, the marriage between the parties fell within the meaning of sub-clause (f) of Section 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, which defines the terms of degrees of prohibited relationships.
The Court pin-pointed the huge difference in income of the husband and wife, and that there was no documentary evidence to support the wife’s claims of being indebted.
Bombay High Court held that maintenance cannot be denied because of possession of higher qualification by wife considering the wife is unemployed.
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J., dismissed the petition. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner and the respondent,
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while allowing in part the revision petition filed challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order made a
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., dismissed an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on finding no
Allahabad High Court: Dr Y.K. Srivastava, J., expressed while deciding the present application that: “Proceeding for interim maintenance, shall as far as
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., addressed a matter wherein the question was considered whether an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code,
Supreme Court has framed guidelines on overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.
Supreme Court: The bench of Indu Malhotra* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has framed guidelines on the issue of maintenance of wife,
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J. while deciding the petition enhanced the interim maintenance amount to be paid to the wife
Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Family Court
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the order of the Appellate Court whereby
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the order of the trial court listing
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband against the order of the Appellate Court whereby his
Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a husband’s petition filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate as confirmed by
Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition holding that the petitioner (wife) was not entitled to maintenance