Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010

Posted on December 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that “If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the

Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

Why PWDV Act?

Also held “It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track.”

Rachana Khaturia Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010

Om Prakash Puri Vs Nandita Puri on 14 October, 2014

Posted on August 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is part of Celebrity Cases Series and pertaining to a wonderful actor we all know in India as Om Puri.

The dole out made by the Family Court at Bandra, awarding the following ‘interim maintenance’ to the respondent and her minor child:
(a) Rs.1,25,000/- per month to the respondent;
(b) Rs.50,000/- per month towards the minor child.
The aforesaid amount of interim maintenance is over and above the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- towards the actual education and medical expenses of the minor child, which the petitioner has been paying and continues to pay to the respondent and the minor child.

The above even after Om Puri has already been doing the following:

allowing the knife to enjoy 6 properties of his including 3 flats in Versova, ANdheri (W)
made payments towards club fees, electricity charges, gas bills, motor car insurance, salary towards cook, driver, taxes, society charges, travelling expenses, telephone charges, licence fees towards occupation of certain apartments, apart from actual money, the total of which would aggregate to approximately Rs.70,00,000/- for the period between November 2012 to September 2013.
The circumstance that there are several bank accounts and fixed deposits in the name of both the petitioner and the respondent, which have virtually been frozen by the respondent. Therefore, a situation has arisen, whereby the petitioner is disabled from utilising the amounts in such fixed deposits and bank accounts on one hand, and at the same time the petitioner is required to make payments towards maintenance to the respondent and the minor child
The circumstance that the petitioner on his own has been paying an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent and the minor child, apart from bearing significant financial burden towards their maintenance and upkeep, as aforesaid;
The circumstance that the petitioner bearing the expenditure with regard to educational and medical needs of not just the minor child but also the respondent’s ailing mother

This resembles the death grip of a python, isn’t it? I will let you read the remaining part of the colorful judgment.

Om Prakash Puri Vs Nandita Puri on 14 October, 2014

Grant or Enhancement of Interim Maintenance

Posted on May 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are judgments of various courts where there are modifications done to the interim maintenance granted to Knife. The reason for this listing is to initiate Perjury proceedings against the Knife.

Supreme Court Judgments

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application from Date of Order)
Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009 (Reduced from 10K to 5K)
Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013 (Total arrears to be paid from date of filing of MC application; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance)

Gujarat High Court Judgments

Sunita Motwani Vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 July, 2017 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application from Date of Order)
Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court Judgments

K.R.Arun vs M.Latha on 22 September, 2014 (Interim is reduced in S24 HMA, to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3000/-, until assets information is received in court)
Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018

G.Chilakamma Vs G.Sattaiah on 20 February, 2003

Posted on April 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a AP High Court judgment aligning to the principle of fixing 1/3rd of Salary as Maintenance as well as Monthly Interim Maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

“…finding had been recorded even by the appellate Court that the principle of 1/3rd salary can be taken as the basis for fixing the quantum. Hence, in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance granting Rs. 800/- per month are liable to be restored.

The reasons why the difference of amount had been granted for the said period and the subsequent period, had not been recorded. it would be just and reasonable to grant the same quantum of maintenance of Rs. 800/- during the period of pendency of the suit also.

G. Chilakamma Vs G. Sattaiah on 20 February, 2003

Citation : 2003 (4) ALD 219, 2003 (5) ALT 354

Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/232227/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HAM Act 23 – Interim Maintenance Granted

Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010

Om Prakash Puri Vs Nandita Puri on 14 October, 2014

Grant or Enhancement of Interim Maintenance

G.Chilakamma Vs G.Sattaiah on 20 February, 2003