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 it was unlawful to make false allegations on the petitioner only to get maintenance after the death of his father-in-law and after receiving notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Whether the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur erred  to not comply with the guidelines mentioned in judgement of Rajnesh V. Neha( Criminal appeal no 730 of 2020) Supreme Court of India, on 4th November, 2020 in which it is clearly mentioned that the bonafide affidavit will be filed by both the parties and the evidences given by petitioner Shri Shived Saxena to rebut the veracity of affidavit submitted by Smt. Megha Khare will be considered and the allegations were made against the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena after receiving notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare.

4. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Rajnesh V. Neha that the wife will not get maintenance if she is well abled body and well-educated to work, whereas the respondent, Smt Megha Khare is highly qualified and did jobs before and after marriage and is not doing job now only to get unfair maintenance by putting false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 

5. Whether the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored that the family court of Jabalpur erred to consider the legal maxim ' Actori incumbit onus probandi' which means that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and in family court, the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare was the plaintiff and she must prove the false allegations that she made against the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 

6. Whether the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred to not consider the legal maxim Actori incumbit onus probandi  which means the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena was the plaintiff in the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh and he tried his best to prove the allegations made against him were false and made by respondent, Smt. Megha Khare after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and affidavit of respondent, Smt Megha Khare was also false, for which the petitioner submitted documents in compliance with Rajnesh V. Neha but all these facts were ignored in Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

7. Whether the honourable high court has erred in not considering the legal maxim that "non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which means an act must be done with a guilty mind in order to be criminal in nature, and not tried to know if the marriage was performed under the coercion of the father of respondent, Smt. Megha Saxena, because petitioner also wanted to know about it, and petitioner would also like that the order be passed by the honourable court to the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare, to comprehend the values of marriage and to live happily with petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if she fails to prove allegations of cruelty made against petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena which she made after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 

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