Question of law-2

QOL 2: Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not failed to consider the cruelty which was caused by the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 Azad Jain vs Smt.Jaya Jain on 21 July, 2009 ?

Ans:  In case of Azad Jain vs Smt.Jaya Jain on 21 July, 2009, it was held by Madhya Pradesh High Court that a wife, against whom a decree for divorce even based on the ground of desertion has been passed, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 unless she suffers from any of the disabilities enumerated in S.125(4) of the Code (Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri AIR 2000 SC 952 referred to).  However, as explained further, in such a case the wife would not be entitled to maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree. Applying the principle to the facts of the case on hand, it could easily be concluded that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code for the period preceding the decree. It is also relevant to note that in the proceedings under the Act, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- p.m., was awarded to the respondent. Furthermore, in view of the finding that she had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable c...
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed ?

Ans: The High Court of Telangana replied the question if a wife who is earning, be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home, though the case of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed,( Tr.C.M.P.Nos.758 and 760 of 2018) which was decided through the learned bench led by M.S.Ramachandra Rao.  In the present case, the family court dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that the wife herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month. The court ordered the first respondent to pay 7 Thousand per month to each petitioner 2 and 3 that were his children towards interim maintenance, from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case and the petition to the extent of petitioner 1 that is the wife was dismissed.  The wife being aggrieved by the order approached the HC for revision. Once the case was brought before the High Court,  the court referred to...
Read more