Q: Question of law- 1

QOL1:  Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not failed to consider what is prohibited in nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. The legal maxim " Quae rerum natur prohibentuur, null lege confirmata sunt " which means what is prohibited in the nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. So, it is against the law of nature to provide the maintenance to abled body and well educated wife when she can earn and she has cheated and put false allegations on her husband to get the maintenance from her husband and husband has other liabilities and strain his nerve to meet the expenses of his family for the happiness of his family. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Elaborate the citation of S. Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum V/s B Mohammad Ghouse & Anr. on 28 March 2016 ?

Ans: In a decision of Andhra High Court in a case S. Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum V/s B Mohammad Ghouse & Anr. on 28 March 2016, it was held that no maintenance relief to wife who left home without justifiable reasons. The High court found that in the cross examination the wife stated that she executed an agreement in the presence of witnesses with an undertaking that she will not compel the respondent for setting up separate family. If really the wife did not compel the husband persistently to set up separate family, what made her to do her signature on the  agreement? The Courts cannot ignore the human conduct while appreciating the rival submissions of the couple to the proproceedings, more particularly in family matters, wherein the possibility of presenting distorted facts by the couple to the proceedings so that they can gain sympathy of the court .If really the wife had suffered in the hands of the husband and his family members, certainly the wife might have avai...
Read more

Q: Explain the citation of Delhi District Court on Smt. Krishna Dhawan vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010 ?

Ans: Delhi District Court on Smt. Krishna Dhawan vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010 - In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove on record any justifiable ground for leaving the company of her husband respondent except that she stated that she has been ill illtreated for the last 20 to 23 years but in her cross examination she herself has admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the respondent at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Thus so far as the allegations of dowry demand are concerned, applicant has failed to prove the same. She has also failed to prove any other justifiable ground on record for her living separately from the respondent. In such circumstances, Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is not entitled for any maintenance. Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is unable to maintain herself and there is no document filed on record by the respondent also to show that applicant is working or is able to maintain hers...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. on 02-03-2000 ?

Ans: During a case of Supreme Court of Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. on 02-03-2000, it was held that  Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under this provision, a wife is not entitled to any Maintenance relief from her husband if she is living in adultery or if she has denies to live with her husband without any sufficient cause or if the couple is living separately by mutual consent. Thus, the entire situation contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr. P.C presupposes the existence of marriage. The provision would be applicable where the marriage between the parties exists as well as  the divorce has not been taken by any spouse. Taking the three scenarios individually, it will be noticed that the first scenario on account of which a wife is not entitled to claim Maintenance relief from her husband is that she is living in adulterous life. Now, adultery is the sexual involvement of two...
Read more