Q: Discuss the citation of SMT. RITU @ RIDHIMA & ANR. VS SANDEEP SINGH SANGWAN for maintenance of wife ?

Ans: SMT. RITU @ RIDHIMA & ANR. VS SANDEEP SINGH SANGWAN ON 15 MARCH 2022 P&H HC.

In 125 Cr.PC , an application for interim maintenance and in other cases . Wife stated that she has no source of income or property and was unable to support herself. During her deposition she maintained the same stand of having no income but she was confronted with the record relating to her job and she admitted that she was working as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- per month. The petitioner joined on 3.7.2017 whereas she had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.PC on 26.07.2017 where she had stated that she does not have any source of income or property to support herself or her daughter. Thus, it was contended by the respondent-husband that she had deliberately and intentionally given wrong information to the court in order to grab the maintenance and harass him. He further contended that she was well educated being/employed as an Assistant Professor with a salary of Rs.28,000/- per month which was sufficient to maintain herself and their child. He stated that it was the foremost duty of the parties to tell the truth so that the Court can reach a conclusion as to whether the amount claimed as maintenance by the wife was to be paid or not. The fact that she had not disclosed information that she was earning Rs.28,000/- per month and also had NSC of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1 Lakh in her PF Account, inquiry ought to be made and proceedings initiated against her under Section 340 Cr.PC. He had further stated that his wife had received an interim maintenance from him to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on 06.05.2019 knowing fully well she was not entitled to maintenance as she had obtained that order by making false statement. He thus claimed that an FIR should be registered under Section 191 to 195 IPC against her.

She appealed in High court to dismiss the said order of probe passed with family court for perjury under section 340 of Cr.P.C R/W 191 and 193 of IPC. But the Punjab and Haryana highcourt dismissed her appeal because she got many opportunities to disclose the truth before the court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more