{"id":304802,"date":"2023-10-15T10:00:13","date_gmt":"2023-10-15T04:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=304802"},"modified":"2023-10-19T11:15:43","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T05:45:43","slug":"delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a case wherein, the appeal was filed against the order dated 22-02-2020, whereby the Family Court had directed Appellant 2 to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the amount claimed by her, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva*<\/span> and Vikas Mahajan, JJ., opined that the proceedings under Section 18<\/a> and 20<\/a> of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/a> (‘HAMA’) were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid, and accordingly set aside the order dated 22-02-2020.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the appellants, wherein Appellant 1 was the wife of the respondent and Appellant 2 was the son of the respondent, filed the subject proceedings under Section 18<\/a> and 20<\/a> of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/a> (‘the Act’), and the Family Court held that the appellants had filed a suit under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and ad-valorem Court fee was payable in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870<\/a> (‘the CF Act’).<\/p>\n

The question before the Court was whether ad valorem court fee was payable on a claim for maintenance filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act.<\/p>\n

Analysis Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court opined that wherever a Family Court had been set up by the State Government, the Family Court had the exclusive jurisdiction over all the proceedings or suits for maintenance under the HAMA, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (‘the HM Act’), the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) or any other statute and in the instant case, the proceedings had been instituted before the Family Court. The Court further opined that the maintenance could be broadly claimed by a Hindu wife under Section 18 of the HAMA, Sections 24 and 25 of the HM Act and Section 15<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’).<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the Trial Court vide its impugned order had held that a claim under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA would be by filing a suit and as such ad valorem Court fee would be payable as per Section 7(ii) of the CF Act.<\/p>\n

The Court further opined that if it was held that a wife who claimed maintenance under the HM Act and CrPC would be liable to pay Court fee of Rs. 15 or Re. 1.25p respectively, but a wife who claimed maintenance under HAMA, would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee calculated at ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year, would be discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous. The unreasonableness was further highlighted considering the fact that the proceedings would be before same forum, which would apply the same procedure and take into account the same factors for assessment of maintenance.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Mamta<\/span> v. Hari Kishan<\/span> (‘Mamta Case’) 2003 SCC OnLine Raj 106<\/a>, wherein it was held that the proceedings before the Family Courts were petitions or applications, and not suits, thus the ad valorem court fees was not payable. The Court also relied on Balwinder Singh<\/span> v. Sinderpal Kaur<\/span> (‘Balwinder Singh Case’) 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6930<\/a>, wherein it was again held that the proceedings before the Family Courts were not suits and if a petition was filed before the Family Court for maintenance, then as per Section 7 of the CF Act, ad valorem court fee was not liable to paid because of the proceedings initiated were in the nature of petition and not suit.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that in the present case, the Family Court had not applied the ratio laid down in Mamta Case (supra), because the Division Bench had referred to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Family Court Rules, 1994 and there was no such rule framed by the Delhi High Court. The Court opined that the Family Court had erred in not appreciating that the ratio laid down in Mamta case(supra).<\/p>\n

The Court opined that “in Mamta case (supra) and Balwinder Singh case (supra) the ratio is that the object of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> was to set up a forum for settlement of family disputes with due emphasis on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and further to eliminate the rigid rules of procedure and evidence<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> (‘the FC Act’) was enacted pursuant to the 59th Report of the Law Commission, and the FC Act made an attempt to simplify the rules of evidence and procedure to enable a Family Court to deal effectively.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court relied on Karbhari Vithoba<\/span> v. Anusuya Karbhari<\/span> 1956 SCC OnLine Bom 97<\/a> and Srikant Chand<\/span> v. Mt. Ram Mohini<\/span> 1957 SCC OnLine Pat 234<\/a> and held that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits, they were the proceedings on which fixed court fee of Re. 1.25p would be paid and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 22-02-2020.<\/p>\n

[Aditya Vikram Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6424<\/a>, decided on 12-10-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> Prosenjeet Banerjee, Mansi Sharma, Shreya Singhal and Astha Baderiya Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted pursuant to the 59th Report of the Law Commission wherein it was stressed that in dealing with the disputes concerning the family, the family court should adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[32929,32930,2543,50417,44269,43743],"class_list":["post-304802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-ad-valorem","tag-court-fees","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956","tag-maintenance-proceedings","tag-suits"],"yoast_head":"\nMaintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits: Delhi HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-10-15T04:30:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-10-19T05:45:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits: Delhi HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-10-15T04:30:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-10-19T05:45:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-10-15T04:30:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-10-19T05:45:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/","name":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-10-15T04:30:13+00:00","dateModified":"2023-10-19T05:45:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court opined that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/15\/delhi-hc-maintenance-proceedings-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-are-not-suits-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maintenance proceedings under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not suits, ad valorem court fee not liable to be paid: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264723,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/30\/unmarried-daughters\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":0},"title":"Can unmarried daughters claim expenses of marriage from their parents under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956? Chh HC addresses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: While stating that, in Indian society, normally expenses are required to be incurred for pre-marriage and also at the time of marriage, the Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Sanjay S. Agrawal, JJ., held that unmarried daughters have a right to claim expenses of marriage from their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":282824,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/an-unmarried-hindu-daughter-can-claim-maintenance-under-section-203-of-the-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-if-she-proves-that-she-is-unable-to-maintain-herself\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":1},"title":"Only unmarried major daughter, unable to maintain herself, can claim maintenance under HAMA; Benefit not extended to all unmarried daughters: Kerala High Court","author":"Editor","date":"January 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court denied the grant of maintenance to an unmarried Hindu major daughter as she could not prove any disability as required under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-310.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":324551,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/17\/marital-status-of-woman-cannot-be-the-determining-factor-for-giving-her-child-in-adoption-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Marital status of woman cannot be the determining factor for giving her child in adoption\u2019, Madras HC sets aside Registering Authority’s order refusing to register adoption deed","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that the reason given in the impugned refusal check slip reveals the patriarchal mind set of the registering authority, giving an underlying assumption that an unmarried woman above the age of 18 years cannot give her biological child in adoption.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301573,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/15\/delhi-hc-divorced-daughter-is-not-a-dependant-u-s-21-of-the-hindu-adoption-and-maintenance-act-1956-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":3},"title":"Divorced daughter is not a dependant u\/s 21 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, thus not entitled to maintenance: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAn unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a \u2018divorced daughter\u2019 does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270516,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/22\/chhattisgarh-high-court-entitles-father-in-law-to-pay-maintenance-estate-of-the-husband-can-be-preferred-to-claim-over-the-estate-of-father-or-mother-of-daughter-in-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":4},"title":"Chhattisgarh High Court entitles father-in-law to pay maintenance; “Estate of the husband can be preferred to claim over the estate of father or mother of daughter in law”","author":"Editor","date":"July 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari JJ. entitled father-in-law to pay maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of the deceased husband which is held under the hands of father-in-law. The maintenance was increased from Rs 2500 to Rs 4000. The respondent- daughter\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":256682,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/03\/maintenance-overlapping-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":304802,"position":5},"title":"Maintenance & Overlapping Jurisdiction | Maintenance can be claimed under DV Act even if already granted under S. 125 CrPC: Del HC reiterates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., reversed the order of the trial court as it dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act only on the basis that it had been filed towards execution of maintenance already granted. Instant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=304802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304802\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=304802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=304802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=304802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}