Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Posted on April 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From para 9,

9. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Citations: [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 554]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3786357/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160aa

Index of Maintenance Judgments under 144 BNSS is here.

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

Posted on January 30, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that,

From Para 45,

45. Despite concurrent findings of three courts as to the legitimacy of the Respondent, he and his mother maintain and proclaim to the world that the Appellant is his biological father. It must be underscored that theAppellant has maintained a consistent stance across all fora that he never had sexual relations with the Respondent’s mother. In fact, the dispute was assumed to have been put to rest in 2011, providing some relief to the Appellant, only to be reopened in 2015, once again making him face the brunt of the allegations. This constant pendulum-like state of affairs and unsubstantiated allegations must have, undoubtedly, had an adverse effect on the Appellant’s quality of life. In this backdrop, an order necessitating a DNA test based on mere allegations of adultery, would ultimately violate the Appellant’s right to dignity and privacy.

From Paras 69 and 70,

69. This convoluted case, spanning over two decades, has no doubt taken its toll on the parties involved and other relevant stakeholders. Given these
extenuating circumstances, at this stage, it must be closed for all intents and purposes.
70. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and set aside the Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 21.05.2018 and of the
Family Court dated 09.11.2015, with the following directions and conclusions:
i. Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’;
ii. The Munsiff Court and the Sub-Judge Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit, which dealt with the question of the legitimacy of the Respondent;
iii. The Family Court, Alappuzha erred in reopening the Maintenance Petition when the self-imposed condition was not satisfied;
iv. The impugned proceedings, initiated by the Respondent, are barred by the principle of res judicata;
v. The proceedings in MC No. No. 224/2007 before the Family Court, Alappuzha stand quashed;
vi. Any claim by the Respondent based upon the perceived relationship of paternity qua the Appellant, stands negated; and
vii. The Respondent is presumed to be the legitimate son of Mr. Raju Kurian.

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

Impugned Judgment:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e977c0b4653d048ca2bb2dc

BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

Posted on June 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

144. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:-
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself; or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter, “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Note:
Major difference between this section and Sec 125 CrPC is that, All traces of the word ‘minor‘ including the definition given for this word under Explanation of Sec 125(1) CrPC are removed in BNSS Sec 144 leading to the consequence that, now a major child also can claim maintenance, if he/she/it is unable to maintain themselves.

BNSS Sec 145 is here.

Entire Sanhita available here.

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] are here.

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Posted on May 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench, held as follows,

From Paras 22 and 23,

22. In view of Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the said decree for divorce granted by the Civil court, when the same has not been challenged by the aggrieved party. There can be no difference between a decree on contest and an ex-parte decree, since, like a decree on contest, an ex-parte decree is also a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence. It is well known that though simply because the defendant has remained ex-parte, the Court shall not grant decree, unless the claim made in the plaint is proved, by means of evidence either oral or documentary or both. In the case on hand, therefore, there can be no doubt that the decree for divorce granted by the Civil court in favour of the petitioner is sufficient proof that the respondent was living in adultery. When once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this Court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the Civil court. Therefore, I hold that besides, oral evidence let in, in this case, the decree granted by the Family Court clearly goes to prove that the respondent is living in adultery and thus, she suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from the petitioner.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the learned Principal Sessions Judge was not right in reversing the order of the Trial Court and therefore, the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge impugned in this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be set aside.

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Index of Maintenance judgements u/s 125 CrPC is here.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Posted on May 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Para 13,

13. From the record, it is evident that learned JMFC has passed the order by dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that
since the respondent did not get divorce from her earlier husband and without getting divorce she entered into second marriage. Hence, she cannot be
ascertained as a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she is not entitled for the claim of maintenance.

From Paras 15-18,

15. It is unearthed from the aforesaid provision that an illegitimate child is entitled to get maintenance but an illegitimate wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The intention of legislature is obvious that maintenance can only be granted in favour of legally wedded wife. On this issue the law laid down by the full Bench in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported as 2005 Lawsuit (SC) 466, is also poignant to be pointed out here:
“There may be substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that law operates harshly against the woman who unwittingly gets into relationship with a married man and Section 125 of the Code does not give protection to such woman. This may be an inadequacy in law, which only the legislature can undo. But as the position in law stands presently there is no escape from the conclusion that the expression ‘wife’ as per Section 125 of the Code refers to only legally married wife.“
16. In view of aforesaid settled propositions and provisions of law, it is crystal clear that the wife should be a “legally wedded wife” for claiming maintenance from her husband. A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband. The aforesaid view has recently been endorsed by this Court in the cases of Sangeeta Rathore W/o Naresh Rathore Vs. Naresh Rathore, 2023 LawSuit (MP) 470 and Kewal Singh Vs. Durgabai, 2024 LawSuit (MP) 179.
17. In conspectus of the aforesaid settled proposition, in this petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. envisages a situation wherein she, having a living spouse, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband without getting divorce from her earlier husband. Nevertheless, this Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and that legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed and unquestioned. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is frustrated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb. In the instant case, while the Court sympathizes with the position of the Respondent, it is constrained to deny her maintenance as per the law of the land which stands as of today. However, the Respondent has the liberty to avail other remedies that may be better suited to the facts and circumstances of this case, such as seeking of compensation under Section 22 of the D.V. Act.
18. In the result thereof, the order of the learned Revisional Court awarding the maintenance to the respondent is found against the law and is also suffering from infirmity and illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Revisional Court is set aside and the order of learned trial Court dated 06.09.2021 is hereby affirmed.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC is here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Posted on May 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 5,

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra) case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

From Paras 7-14,

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma 2 and expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @ Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my first reportable judgment.

Citations: [2024 Latest Caselaw 3581 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7473550/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/671c878cafb795648bb5985d

https://mynation.net/docs/1098-2023/

https://latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2024/april/2024-latest-caselaw-3581-ap

Index of Maintenance cases under section 125 CrPC is here.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Posted on April 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 6-10,

6. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, though there is savings of exorbitant quantum of amount made deductible just to negate giving maintenance to the wife and child, what are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax. But considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.
7. While appreciating salary/income of the husband above stated deductions cannot be considered while calculating salary of husband. If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, if the Court finds that the deductions are artificial deductions in the manner above discussed, then the Court has to consider the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities while awarding quantum of maintenance amount. The deductions as above stated will ultimately enure to the benefit of the husband only. Suppose if the husband raises loan for purchase of site, house or car and the deduction is made from the salary and shown in his salary certificate, ultimately that raising of loan is for the benefit of husband only and just because deductions are made in this regard, it is not the ground to award lesser quantum of maintenance.
8. In the present case, the deductions is more than 50%, hence, it is proved that the husband has made an arrangement to show more deductions with an intention to pay lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, the said deductions above discussed cannot be the factor to award lesser quantum of maintenance to the wife. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner/husband is a Branch Manager working in State Bank of India receiving salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Then the Family Court is correct in awarding maintenance award of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the child/daughter, which needs no interference by this Court.
9. Therefore, it is proved that the respondents have become destitute at the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner is working as Manager in State Bank of India and receiving a lucrative salary per month and thus upon considering all these facts and circumstances, it is proved that the petitioner is financially capable person to maintain his wife and daughter. Thus, order passed by the Family Court need not be interfered with and as such, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable to the respondents by the petitioner herein.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC are here.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Para 9,

9. Thus, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that she resided with the applicant for the last time in Gwalior.Her contention is that Gwalior is her permanent address as her parents are residing there and she occasionally visits her parents and,therefore, the Family Court, Gwalior has a jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The stand taken bythe respondent no.1 cannot be appreciated as the word “resides” cannot be equated with places where flying visits are made. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that at the time of filing of the applicationunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she was posted in Gwalior and the Family Court, Gwalior would not lose jurisdiction merely on the ground that subsequently she was transferred, but the case of respondent no.1 is that from the year 2011 onwards she is posted inDelhi. Flying visits to a particular place with a solitary intention to confer jurisdiction would not satisfy the provisions of Section 126 (1)of Cr.P.C.
10. Thus, it is clear that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place cannot be treated as a part of the word “reside”.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Thus, it is clear that it is the contention of the respondent no.1 that her daughter is residing with her. Admittedly, respondent no.2, daughter of respondent no.1, is prosecuting her studies in Delhi. Thus, it is clear that both the respondents no.1 and 2 are residing in Delhi where respondent no.1 is serving in Airport Authority of India and is posted as ATC. The respondent no.1 is serving in Delhi from the year 2011. The address which has been shown by them in the cause-title has been given with a solitary intention to give territorial jurisdiction to the Family Court, Gwalior and in fact the Family Court, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to try the application in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, order dated 25/10/2021 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.234/2019 (new no.367/2021) is hereby set aside. The application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gwalior is held to be without jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they so desire, they can file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Courts having jurisdiction in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Posted on May 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of MP High Court at Jabalpur held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6, (What is an interlocutory order?)

5. Now question remains for consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order? Consequently, whether criminal revision petition is lie against that order?
6. Term ‘Interlocutory Order’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs State, reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962, has given following observation in para No.23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order:-
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having to resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. ‘That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in s. 11(1) of the Act.”

From Para 9,

9. In the case of Sumerchand vs Sandhuran Rani and Others, reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1396, Sunil Kumar Sabharwal vs Neelam Sabharwal, reported in 1991 Cr.L.J. 2056 High Court of Haryana and a order dated 15.11.18 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Ashu Dhiman vs Smt Jyoti Dhiman, Cr. Misc. Application (C-482) No.434/2018, it has been held that an order passed for interim maintenance under provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory order, hence, criminal revision petition is maintainable against such order.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978

Posted on May 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court held that, a statutory right created as a projection of public policy can not be negated by a contract.

The last defence, based on mehar payment, merits more serious attention. The contractual limb of the contention must easily fail. The consent decree of 1962 resolved all disputes and settled all claims then available But here is a new statutory right created as a projection of public policy by the Code of 1973, which could not have been in the contemplation of the parties when in 1962, they entered into a contract to adjust their then mutual rights. No settlement of claims which does not have the special statutory right of the divorcee under s. 125 can operate to negate that claim.

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978

Citations : [1979 SCC CRI 473], [1979 SCR 2 75], [1979 AIR SC 362], [1979 MPLJ SC 132], [1979 CRLJ SC 151], [1979 SCC 2 316]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/359354/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd27f607dba63d7e69d57

Index is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 – Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025

BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978