No Maintenance to Knife Judgments

Posted on May 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Broad grounds on which maintenance is denied to knife

1. Wife who Deserts husband not entitled for maintenance

2. Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance

3. Wife left job and sitting idle after filing cases not entitled for maintenance

In some recent judgments of High Courts, it is being held that capable to earn is NOT equated to earning currently. Banking on this aspect only is not helpful and can be suicidal if this is the only argument victim-husband has.

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment this time from Bombay High Court, which says no cruelty proved in maintenance case under section 125 CrPC results in no maintenance to Knife.

This sentence in last para is not appreciable though.

However, the payment of maintenance allowance, if any, during the intervening period, is not refundable by her.

Note: This is how the false case filers are encouraged/supported by Judiciary in India.

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008

Grant of Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Posted on May 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed here are some judgments wherein the judge/magistrates have granted maintenance to knifes.

Andhra Pradesh

Boddu Anjali Vs Boddu Annapoornamma on 17 June, 2015

Boddu Anjali Vs Boddu Annapoornamma on 17 June, 2015

Posted on May 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A very good point available in this judgment from the JMFC. Ongole, for those who are facing Domestic Violence case as well as IPC 498A wherein the allegations are same in both.

When the husband of a knife dies, maintenance of the daughter-in-law falls are the parents-in-law as long as she is alive. There is no requirement of law that a grandfather is under an
obligation to maintain his grand child when the mother of said child is alive.

Boddu Anjali Vs Boddu Annapoornamma on 17 June, 2015

Grant of Interim Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are list of interim maintenance judgments from various High Courts

Delhi High Court

Bharat Hegde vs Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009
Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana on 08 Aug 2016 [Based on Bharat Hegde above from 2007]

Karnataka High Court

Sunita Motwani Vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 July, 2017

Poongadi And Anr Vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment re-iterated that the imprisonment for a monthly maintenance payment failure is 1 single month, for each violation.

From Para 6,

6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha v. B.G Shivananjappa 2005 4 SCC 468 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali 1999 5 SCC 672. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon.

From Para 8,

8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21-4-2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the maintenance petition (MC No. 1 of 1993) i.e 4-2-1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September 2013 payable on or before 7-10-2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the respondent, the learned trial court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) CrPC.

Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013

Citations : [2013 SCR 9 862], [2013 AIR BOMR 6 775], [2013 SLT 8 113], [2013 SCALE 12 186], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 371], [2013 AIR SC 5764], [2014 AIR SC 24], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 794], [2013 CRLJ SC 5006], [2014 SCC CRI 1 361], [2013 SCC 10 618], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 504], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 701], [2013 AIOL 65], [12013 SUPREME 7 254], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 893], [2013 GUJ LH 3 363], [2013 CTC 6 338], [2013 AIC 131 58], [2014 ECRN 1 720], [2014 AD SC 7 511], [2013 ALLCC 83 973], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 299], [2013 DMC 3 460], [2014 GLR SC 3 2005], [2013 JLJR 4 575], [2014 LW CRL 1 69], [2013 NCC 2 840], [2014 PLJR 1 52], [2014 SCJ 1 797], [2013 AIR SCW 5764]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5626322/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415baa

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Posted on May 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.

Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.

What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….

… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.

For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.

Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.

Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.

As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.

We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.

Laljee Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Anr on 14 September, 1981

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Supreme Court judgment affirmed that Impotency of Husband is a valid ground that causes Physical and Mental cruelty on Knife and I also valid for maintenance under section 125(3).

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan vs Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr on 14 September, 1981

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a verdict from Delhi High Court dismissing petition of the wife that is filed against the Trial court order to pay maintenance to Husband along with litigation expenses and a car for his usage !!

One should appreciate the detailed dissection made by the Hon’ble Court, of the financial information made available by parties in arriving at the conclusion.

The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term “support” is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

The Supreme Court Judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others is available here.

The Delhi High Court judgment of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde is available here that talks about the 11 factors to be considered an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal vs Sanjaykumar Ratilal Jaiswal on 9 December, 1999

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Gujarat High Court delivered this Judgment highlighting many key judicial aspects.

Merely because the husband is possessing valuable movable and immovable properties it is hardly of any relevance in the matter for grant of temporary maintenance. It is understandable if the husband is having regular income from the properties then it may be taken into consideration. However, as per the case of the petitioner herself, these are all ancestral properties and at this stage, it is difficult to find out what is the ultimate share of the husband – respondent therein. The petitioner has not given out what regular income per month husband is getting from these properties. The valuation of properties irrespective of the fact whether what is stated is correct or not, is not sufficient to take that what claim has been made for maintenance and other things has to be accepted.

Key point to note is:

To reach to a reasonable sum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife on her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act what income regularly per month the husband is having has to be considered. He is in employment and accordingly his salary is taken into consideration and the amount of interim maintenance awarded can not be interfered with.

Exploitation of petitioner by advocate:

The rejoinder affidavit has given shocking facts and really after going through the contents of this affidavit, it touches the conscience of the court that how the lady who has no source of income whatsoever and entitled for free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been exploited by an advocate.

Final touch:

The petitioner was entitled for free legal aid but she could not get this facility either because of unawareness of her right or that her advocate has not made known her of this right, the innocent husband cannot be saddled with the costs of this revision application. Hence, no order as to costs.

Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal vs Sanjaykumar Ratilal Jaiswal on 9 December, 1999

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Maintenance

No Maintenance to Knife Judgments

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008

Grant of Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Boddu Anjali Vs Boddu Annapoornamma on 17 June, 2015

Grant of Interim Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act

Poongadi And Anr Vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Anr on 14 September, 1981

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal vs Sanjaykumar Ratilal Jaiswal on 9 December, 1999