Question of law-7

QLP-7: Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored the true facts that the respondent who is well-educated can do permanent job and a respondent is hiding her job and deliberately not doing job even if she did job before and after marriage and has committed offence under section 209 and 211 of IPC.

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: Discuss the concept of maintenance of wife u/s 125 of Cr.P.C?

Ans: Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India means “right to livelihood”. A woman can not be denied of such right being dragged out of her matrimonial home. She has a right to sustain her life as well as it must be with dignity. A person cannot be permitted to live a life like an animal and a person can not be thrown away from grace. A woman can not be compelled to roam for her basic necessities somewhere else. She is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the matrimonial house. This is where status comes into play that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one and she cannot be allowed to live a life of beggar and destitute on the scrap heap of society and the very concept of sustenance and maintenance generates there and there is a duty cast upon the husband to look after his wife as well as upon his children. But on the other hand, law has also cast a duty upon the courts that justice ...
Read more