Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Paras 2-3,

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravichandragouda R.Patil, party-in-person, learned counsel Smt.Archana Magdum for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Burji appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner, appearing in-person, is said to have enrolled as an advocate in the month of October 2024. It is the case of the petitioner that beyond the prescribed statutory fee of ₹750/-, the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council has been collecting optional fees of ₹6800/-. It transpires that ₹750/- is the only fee that is legally sanctioned for collection in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961. The issue regarding whether the respondents could charge fees beyond what is stipulated under the Statute need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

From Paras 5-7,

5. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that the charging of enrollment fee, in excess of statutory stipulation, is impermissible in law.
6. The learned counsel Smt.Archana Magadum, appearing for respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council, submits that the fee was collected prior to the order passed by the Apex Court in GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN BABU (supra). Therefore, if the account details of the petitioner is furnished, the fee that is in excess would be refunded, and if a representation to that effect be submitted to the Bar Council, action would be taken in accordance with law as submitted hereinabove.
7. In the light of the issue standing completely answered by the Apex Court in the judgments rendered in the case GAURAV KUMAR (supra) and KLJA KIRAN BABU (supra), the petitioner in-person shall now submit a representation to the Bar Council within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

From Para 9,

9. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 – Karnataka State Bar Council cannot and will not collect any fee contrary to law.

Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC-D:14930]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187650583/

Index

Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023

Posted on November 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 11,

11. The Divorce Petition was filed in the year 2007. After the Divorce Petition was filed, the appellant-wife got registered an FIR bearing No. 106/2008 under Sections 498A/406/34 I.P.C. at P.S.Nangloi against the respondent-husband and his family members though they have been acquitted vide the judgment dated 16.03.2023. The appellant-wife had also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’) against the respondent-husband but the same was also disposed of on 30.09.2022. A complaint case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) titled Sushila Vs. Joginder was filed which is pending adjudication before the Malhila Court, Rohini. Further, a complaint case titled Sushila Devi Vs. Sehnoor Khan & Ors. was also filed which is pending trial before the learned M.M., Tis Hazari Courts.

From Para 23,

23. Significantly, according to the respondent-husband, though the parties started residing in the same house but they were living as strangers. The appellant-wife denied him conjugal relationship and whenever he approached her, she threatened him to commit suicide. Again, there is no serious rebuttal of this testimony of the respondent-husband which again reflects that there was breakdown of conjugal relationship which is the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship.

From Para 34,

34. Be that as it may, the allegations of appellant-wife are that the respondent-husband had got married. However, neither any specific details nor any proof whatsoever of the alleged second marriage has been tendered on record or given in the complaints mentioned above. Even if it is accepted that the respondent-husband has started living with another woman and has two sons during the pendency of Divorce Petition, that in itself, cannot be termed as cruelty in the peculiar circumstances of this case when the parties have not been co-habiting since 2005. After such long years of separation with no possibility of re-union, the respondent-husband may have found his peace and comfort by living with another woman, but, that is a subsequent event during the pendency of the Divorce Petition and cannot disentitle the husband from divorce from the wife on the proven grounds of cruelty. Moreover, the consequence of such liaison shall be borne by the respondent-husband, the woman and the children. The appellant-wife has not been able to prove any other act of cruelty by the respondent-husband disentitling the respondent-husband from taking divorce.

Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114898556/

https://www.barandbench.com/news/husband-cohabiting-another-woman-long-separation-wifenotcruelty-delhi-high-court

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/husband-living-with-another-woman-couple-not-in-cohabitation-for-long-time-not-cruelty-delhi-hc-1494973

https://www.legitquest.com/case/sushila-v-joginder/788926

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026

Posted on October 29 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench at Madurai of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 6, (Slipper shot #1)

6. Even though the law has thus been declared in categorical terms, we notice in recent times that there are egregious breaches. Mr.Badrudeen Mustafa, an MLA representing the Madurai Central Constituency where the famed Meenakshi temple is located, went inside the temple premises soon after his election. He claimed that he had a right to inspect if proper amenities are being provided. He also went up the temple towers on the occasion of Kumbabishekam. It is ironical that the said MLA proclaimed that Sanatana Dharma ought to eradicated.

From Para 7, (Slipper shot #2)

7. We take judicial notice of the fact that a Hon’ble Minister who is a Christian by faith, entered Thiruchendur temple without giving the undertaking required from Non-Hindus. We have the illustrious instance of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Shri Joseph Vijay who worshipped Goddess Meenakshi after signing the undertaking. The Hon’ble Chief Minister who is a Christian by faith was not asked to convert to Hinduism. He was only requested to affirm his reverence for the deity. This is what we call as an inclusive approach. We recall instances from the holy life of Kanchi Maha Periyava. When some foreigners and persons belonging to other faiths would express their desire to embrace Hinduism, he not only discouraged them but called upon them to show greater fidelity to their faith. When Justice Ismail of the Madras High Court used to visit him, Periyava respected the great judge’s sentiments by giving him sandal wood paste instead of ‘Viboothi’.

From Para 8, (Slipper shot #3)

8. … We take judicial notice of a video doing rounds in the social media of persons wearing skull caps, pushing their way through in Thiruvannamali Arunachaleswarar temple, notwithstanding the vigorous protests of the devotees. The HR&CE staff stood as mute spectators.

From Para 11, (Slipper shot #4)

11. That is why, we deem it necessary to render an authoritative pronouncement. We made it clear at the very outset that the scope of this judgment is confined to Agamic temples. Lord Ayyapa has devotees cutting across religions. Shirdi Sai Baba is also beyond religion. Both Hindus as well as Muslims claimed him as their own. Of course now, he is more a part of the Hindu pantheon.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16. We do not want to stop with citing precedents. The statutory provisions are equally clear. Section 10 of the HR&CE Act makes it clear that every person from the Commissioner to the last grade servant shall profess the Hindu religion. Section 24(3) of the HR&CE Act makes it clear that even the officers under the Act, shall have due regard to the religious practice or usage, while exercising the right of entry within the premises of the institution. Section 24(4) states that nothing in Section 24 of the Act shall be deemed to authorise any person who is not a Hindu to enter the premises or place referred to in the provision.
17. The petitioner herein is a Hindu. He is entitled to insist that the trustees of the various Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu uphold the Agamic
injunctions by not permitting non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking from crossing the flag-pole. If such entry is permitted, it would defile the sanctity of the temple. We intend to go a step further. Even entry into the temple premises, cannot be permitted for non-Hindus who sport their religious markers and who do not subscribe their reverence for the deity concerned. This subscription must be in the format prescribed by the institution concerned. We say so by deriving inspiration from Kalyan Dass wherein it was observed that the entire temple precincts has to be held sacrosanct and also the statutory definition found in the 1947 Act. This writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026

Posted on October 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 38,

38. The passport shall be renewed for the period specified in the Orders dated 03.02.2025 in W.P.(C) 6612/2025. Since no specific period / terms of renewal have been mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2024 in W.P.(C) 1215/2025 and order dated 23.12.2024 in W.P (C) 3597/2025, the passport shall be renewed only for a period of one year, as contemplated in GSR 570 (E) read with notification dated 10.10.2019 and Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to move an application before the Trial Court seeking that the passport be renewed for a longer period. Any order that may be passed by the said Trial Court on such an application shall necessarily be binding on the passport authorities.

Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Passport related Judgments is here.

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025

Posted on October 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court of India held as follows,

From Para 14,

14. We are also unable to agree with the view that the appellant could not fall within GSR 570(E) because the NIA Court did not itself mention “ten years” in its order. The appellant’s application before that court specifically sought renewal for ten years. The NIA Court granted no objection for renewal, released the passport for that limited purpose, directed redeposit after renewal and prohibited the appellant from obtaining any visa or travelling abroad without its permission. The Delhi High Court, dealing with the conviction in the CBI case, then expressly held that there was no basis to deny renewal “for a regular period of ten years” and granted permission accordingly, while continuing the condition that the appellant shall not leave the country without its permission.Read together, in the manner envisaged by the OM dated 10.10.2019, these orders supply both the requisite judicial permission and a clear indication of the period of validity. In such circumstances, the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court were not justified in treating Section 6(2)(f) as continuing to operate in full force so as to deny renewal altogether.

From Para 16,

16. The respondents and the Calcutta High Court have also treated the expression “permission to depart from India” in GSR 570(E) as if it necessarily refers only to a concrete permission for an immediately proposed journey. We do not read the notification in so narrow a manner. Where, as here, the conditions of bail already stipulate that the appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned, and the same court
then grants no objection to renewal of the passport without relaxing that condition, the requirement that departure from India shall be subject to judicial permission is built into the very terms of the exemption. The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the bar under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.

From Para 24,

24. Finally, even on the respondents’ own reading of GSR 570(E), the consequence of an order which does not specify a longer period of validity is that the passport should be issued for a shorter duration, usually one year, and not that renewal must be refused altogether. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did not examine this aspect, because they proceeded on the premise that the appellant stood outside the exemption altogether. Once it is recognised that the appellant is within the exempted class, the correct question for the passport authority is the appropriate period of validity in the facts of the case, not whether any renewal is permissible at all. In the present matter, given that the Delhi High Court has expressly authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court has imposed stringent conditions including redeposit and prior permission for travel, we see no justification to curtail the normal period of validity.

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Passport related Judgments is here.

Orders on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws

Posted on October 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A collection of some decisions on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws.

Interim Maintenance Orders under Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Anju and Anr Vs Rinku Dahiya on 11 Oct 2023 [DHC: HMA 24 is not to equalize the parties; If NRIs involved, PPPI (Purchase Power Parity Index) has to be used; Interim Maintenance reduced]
H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024 [KarHC: Stay of divorce proceedings until arrears of interim maintenance is paid]
Sreenivas Motupalli Vs Anjana Taggarse Motupalli on 15 Oct 2024 [TelHC: Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance]
Amarnath Vs J.Remabarathi on 22 Aug 2025 [MadHC: Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance To Live Comfortably]

Interim Maintenance Orders under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Interim Maintenance Orders under Section 144 BNSS [Section 125 CrPC]

K.R.Arun vs M.Latha on 22 September, 2014 [KarHC: Interim is reduced in S24 HMA, to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3000/-, until assets information is received in court]
Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar on 9 Aug 2019 [DHC: Wife who is independent and have source of income, can be a ground to deny interim maintenance]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Zahir Obdullah and Anr Vs Omar Abdullah on 31 Aug 2023 [DHC: Interim enhanced to 1.5 lakhs from 75,000; despite the law providing, Court granted maintenance to major children!]
K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024 [KarHC: Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld]
Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024 [MPHC: Interim granted from the date of filing the Income Affidavit; 25% of income as Interim]
Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024 [AllHC: Once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife (attracting Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.), then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue]
Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025 [KHC: Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits]
Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 [DHC: No Interim Maintenance for previously working wife]
Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025 [KarHC: Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld; Refund of Interim Maintenance amount ordered]
Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025 [DHC: When ad interim Maintenance can be granted; Interim Maintenance cannot be granted without an Interim Maintenance application]
N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025 [MadHC: Lied on the Income Affidavit, so interim maintenance reduced]
Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025 [DHC: Courts must assess income before fixing interim maintenance and remanded the matter for fresh determination.]
Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026 [DHC: Courts can assess a husband’s income on minimum wages where financial disclosure is incomplete and enhanced interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.]

Interim Maintenance Orders under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]
Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then record a finding as to grant interim relief or not]
Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 [SC: BIL pays interim maintenance]
Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 [JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed]
Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 [PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders]
Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025 [West/THC/Delhi: Arrears for the purpose of interim maintenance shall start from the date of compliance i.e., filing of the income affidavit and not from the date of application seeking interim maintenance]
Jyotirmoy Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 5 May 2026 [CalHC: Ad-interim maintenance also only after RvN Affidavits; No DV still maintenance to daughter (This is perverse and hopefully be set aside by Supreme Court in a future case) ]
Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026 [Interim Maintenance to wife modified from Date of Application to Date of Order]
Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]

Back to Maintenance Judgments index here.

Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025

Posted on October 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A JMFC at West/THC/Delhi held as follows,

Matter is listed for arguments on interim relief application.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner undertakes to file the supporting documents with the income affidavit during course of the day with advance copy to opposite side.
As the petitioner has not supporting documents petition in compliance of judgement of “Rajnesh vs. Neha, Crl. No.730/2020”. In the said judgment, it is clearly mentioned that the calculation of arrears for the maintenance will start from the date of application and not from the date of order. The said direction is given considering the fact that a bonafide and diligent petitioner should not be made to suffer because of delay caused by the respondent. The same in no way favours a party who herself fails to make the compliance. The petitioner has not disclosed her income for the purpose of grant of interim maintenance with the petition. The filing of income affidavit alongwith the petition goes in consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court because if the respondent does not file his income affidavit in time he is anyway at disadvantage because arrears will be given from the date of compliance by the petitioner. The application, without the affidavit, cannot be considered an effective application within the scope of “Rajnesh vs. Neha (Supra) and if not merely a “bunch of paper”, it is definitely not sufficient to grant interim maintenance. For this reason, petitioner cannot be allowed to stack up arrears because of her default as no party can take advantage of their own wrong. Therefore, the date of filing of income affidavit of the petitioner gains importance for the purpose of calculating the arrears. As there is lapse on the part of petitioner in complying the said judgment, it is made clear that arrears for the purpose of interim maintenance shall start from the date of compliance i.e., filing of the income affidavit and not from the date of application seeking interim maintenance.
Let the supporting documents be filed during the course of the day.

Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Blog Single

Index of Maintenance Order under DV Act is here.

Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024

Posted on October 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 12-13,

12. Considering the monthly income of the respondent, 25% of the same would be around Rs.7,400/-. But the trial without considering the ratio observed by the Apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar (Supra) has awarded lesser amount for maintenance. Therefore, interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is to be enhanced.
13. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner had filed maintenance application in the month of November, 2021 and had filed affidavit on 25.04.2023 hence, the learned trial Court has awarded maintenance since 25.04.2023 which appears to be just and proper.

Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026

Posted on October 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court held as follows,

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. The courts cannot remain oblivious to the practical realities of life. An ordinary salaried employee cannot reasonably be expected to suddenly discharge arrears accumulated for 10 or 11 years at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Such directions, instead of securing justice, may push the person liable to pay into financial ruin and perpetual indebtedness. This Court is further constrained to observe that if proceedings of maintenance remain pending for a decade and thereafter retrospective maintenance is awarded from the date of application, the very essence of “maintenance” stands diluted. The purpose of maintenance is to provide immediate support to avoid starvation and destitution. If the claimant has managed to sustain herself, survive and pursue litigation for all these years, then grant of huge retrospective arrears after lapse of a decade cannot be said to advance the object of immediate sustenance. Rather, it assumes the character of a monetary decree or financial compensation, which is beyond
the true scope of maintenance jurisprudence.
9.1 The delay in disposal of maintenance proceedings by the judicial system cannot become a tool for imposing crushing retrospective liabilities upon either party. Courts are expected to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and equitable approach while determining the commencement of maintenance. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of the order instead of from the date of filing of the application. Such an approach would balance the rights of respondent No.1 to receive financial support with the financial capacity and practical limitations of the petitioner and would also preserve the true spirit and object underlying the law relating to maintenance.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the underlying rationale behind the aforesaid principle is to obviate the grave financial hardship which may be caused on account of imposition of huge retrospective maintenance liabilities accumulated during the prolonged pendency of maintenance proceedings. Such delayed adjudication often results in serious adverse consequences, inasmuch as the person concerned is suddenly burdened with discharge of substantial lump-sum arrears after several years, apart from the continuing obligation of monthly maintenance. The very object of maintenance jurisdiction is to provide immediate succour and to save the claimant from destitution and starvation. Maintenance proceedings, therefore, ought not to be permitted to linger indefinitely. In cases where such delay occurs, the responsibility cannot always be attributed solely to the parties and the systemic delay in adjudication also cannot be ignored. Consequently, directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, may in certain cases operate harshly and result in an excessively onerous financial burden, particularly upon a salaried person or a person having limited means, who is required to simultaneously clear accumulated arrears as well as continue making monthly payments.

Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under DV Act is here.

Brijesh Rajkumar Suri Vs Navita Brijesh Suri on 16 Sep 2026

Posted on October 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 22-24,

22. However, at this stage, it is imperative to note that the learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the impugned order insofar as the monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent from the date of filing of her application, i.e., from 08.01.2021. The challenge is on the ground that the respondent herself has admitted that she was employed as a sales helper in Bata showroom till June 2024 and thus, the finding of the learned Family Court in awarding maintenance w.e.f. 08.01.2021 is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
23. This Court finds merit in the aforesaid contention. Apart from the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1860 on 08.01.2021 by the respondent/wife, wherein, she had stated that she is financially independent and thus capable of securing a future for her daughter, even as per the respondent’s affidavit dated 05.11.2024 filed before the learned Family Court, she stated that while she was employed as a sales helper in a Bata showroom on Saturdays and Sundays for an income of Rs. 7,000/- per month, she was ousted from her job in June 2024, as the owner of the showroom did not require extra staff. Hence, admittedly, at the time of filing of the maintenance application in 2021, the respondent was employed and earning.
24. Keeping in view the respondent’s employment from the period of March 2020 till June 2024, it is held that she is not entitled to the interim maintenance with effect from the date of filing of her application, i.e., 08.01.2021 up till June 2024 as granted by the learned Family Court.

Brijesh Rajkumar Suri Vs Navita Brijesh Suri on 16 Sep 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Highlights:

HMA Divorce filed in 2021 and Interim Order (HMA24) passed by Family Court in Nov 2024.
Mat.Appeal filed in High Court in 2024 and partly allowed in Sep 2026.

Index

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Ravichandragouda R Patil Vs KSBC and Anr on 18 Nov 2025

Sushila Vs Joginder on 13 Sep 2023

Thangam Venkatesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 23 Oct 2026

Mukul Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent at RPO Delhi on 02 Feb 2026

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Anr on 19 Dec 2025

Orders on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws

Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025

Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024

Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026

Brijesh Rajkumar Suri Vs Navita Brijesh Suri on 16 Sep 2026