Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The statutory provisions for maintenance are intended to protect the spouse, children or parents from destitution and vagrancy, and they declare the public policy of the nation. Thus, the above legal principle is equally applicable to an agreement attempting to contract out of the provisions of the Act.”
The Court opined that the appellant was entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, and which reasonably secures her future.
The Family Court while decreeing the dissolution marriage, had directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent-wife.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah is the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023. He has formerly served as a Judge in Patna High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.
“Without demanding permanent alimony in the written statement or by a separate application, Trial Court would not have granted permanent alimony to the respondent/wife.”
As far as the conciliation efforts were concerned, the Court noted that all efforts of mediation/ conciliation to reunite the parties had failed.
“For the act of cruelty committed, once arrest of parents of a spouse is caused on false allegations or allegations found to be false during a criminal trial, no further or strict proof of cruelty may be prescribed or applied by Courts.”
“A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body.”
This ruling is significant in the light of the judgment dated 01-05-2023, wherein the Constitution Bench had held that the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a matter pertaining to mental cruelty, the Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and N.K. Chandravanshi, JJ., expressed that,
Kerala High Court: Observing that trauma in a marital discord is common to both parties, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bombay High Court: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J., addressed the following substantial questions of law: Whether it is necessary for the wife to
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vireshkumar B. Mayani, JJ., while addressing the issue of grant of permanent alimony
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,
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam, JJ., addressed an appeal with regard to seeking interim maintenance when
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ. allowed an appeal asking for
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. entertained an appeal by the appellant-wife under Section