Q: Discuss the citation of Ajithkumar vs Simmi on 5 December, 2016 ?

Ans: In case of Madras High Court on Ajithkumar vs Simmi on 5 December, 2016, the High Court talking about the section 125(4) of Cr.P.C had taken consideration of the Supreme court’s Rohtash Singh case . The high court observed in the said case, that the apex court had given its opinion that if wife had refused to live with her husband , as per Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to maintenance. If the marriage exists, the wife is under a legal and moral obligation to live with her husband and to fulfill the marital obligations. She cannot, without any sufficient cause, refuse to live with her husband. "Sufficient cause" have been interpreted differently by the High Courts having regard to the facts of individual cases.

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 citation of Amit Kumar vs. Navjot Dubey, CR No. 6198 of 2013, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ?

Ans: In the case of Amit Kumar vs. Navjot Dubey, CR No. 6198 of 2013, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the lower court to award interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, although the wife was earning more than her husband. The wife was also taking care of their two children. The High Court's decision reaffirmed the right to maintenance for working wives. The court held, “Taking into consideration, prices of daily necessities of life, expenses on education of the children, who would have to meet the challenges of the society , the Punjab and Haryana find it difficult to accept contention of the petitioner that maintenance pendente lite assessed by the court below is on higher side as well as requires reduction.” The court noted that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living as if she were still living in the matrimonial home, stating that this is a well-established principle in law. Therefore, the court reject...
Read more