Synopsis

 Synopsis:

The Constitution of India under Article 136  vests honourable Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant leave to appeal against any judgement or order or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by the court/tribunal in the territory of India. Thus, this special leave petition is filed in honourable Supreme Court against the impunged order of Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  to dismiss the criminal revisional no. 587 of 2020 under section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to respondent Smt. Megha Khare.

The case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, respondent which was dismissed by honourable high court of Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 587 of 2020 is  outlined  before honourable Supreme Court in nutshell as:

1. That, the petitioner Shri Shived Saxena is legally wedded husband of respondent Smt. Megha Khare.

2. That the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena challenged the validity of order dated 05.09.2019 in honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Jabalpur in MJCR No.849/2018  whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance has been decided in favour of respondent, Smt. Megha Khare and petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena has been directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month by family court, Jabalpur.

Thus, it is to be apprised in Special leave petition filed in honourable Supreme Court that the impugned order of honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has erred to considered the true facts of this maintenance case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, Respondent and the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has not considered the evidences to rebut the affidavit of respondent, Smt. Megha Khare in compliance with the Rajnesh V. Neha judgement of honourable Supreme Court in which it is mentioned that both petitioner and respondent will submit affidavit bonafidely.

The facts has been mentioned in grounds of special petition leave that Smt. Megha Saxena has made false accusation on Petitioner Shri, Shived Saxena only to get maintenance.  

Smt. Megha Khare is well- educated  and her qualification is BBA, B.ed, MBA. 

It is to be brought to light before honourable Supreme Court in this Special leave petition that in conformity with legal maxim 'Quae rerum natur prohibentuur, null lege confirmata sunt ', what is prohibited in the nature of things, can not be confirmed by law because justice is not the personal conscience but the conscience of whole of humanity. In compliance with latest judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha , the maintenance should not be granted to well-educated respondent, Megha because she is well-educated and she did job before and after marriage and now she is not doing job only to get maintenance by putting false allegations on Petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena.

Apart from latest judgment by Honourable Supreme Court of Rajnesh V. Neha, there are some other judgements by Honourable High Courts and Family Courts whereby the honourable courts have safeguarded husband from unfair maintenance claim by wife when she was well-educated and was able to maintain herself.

The catena of these case laws when the unfair claim of maintenance by wife has been dismissed are mentioned herewith below:

·       Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 234 (2016) DLT 693.

·       Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012.

·       Biswajit Murmu & Anr vs The State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) on 29 July, 2015.

·       Smt. Mamta Jaiswal V. Rajesh Jaiswal on 24th March, 2000.

·       Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 19 May, 2000 on Rajasthan High Court, page no. 362.

·       Sudhir Gupta v. Maniha Kumari @ Manisha Gupta [ CRL.M.C. 1117/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5684/2021.

·       Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008 .

·       Bhagwan V. Kamla Devi(AIR 1975 SC 83 )

·       Dr. E. Shanthi vs Dr. H.K. Vasudev on 22 August, 2005 ,Karnataka High Court.

·       Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

·       Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

·       Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798.

·       Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

·        Criminal Revision No. 467 of 3017, Smt Khushi @ Samiksha V. Ankit, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 28th February, 2020.

Thus, it is prayed to honourable Supreme Court in this special leave petition that the honourable Supreme court may be pleased to pass an order to set aside the previous order of maintenance in favour of respondent Smt. Megha Khare because Smt. Megha Khare is well-educated and she did job before and after marriage and she is not doing job and has made false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena only to get unfair maintenance.

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 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