Q: Discuss the citation of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Suresh Bharadwaj vs Smt. Vandana on 17 September, 2012 ?

Ans: In case of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Suresh Bharadwaj vs Smt. Vandana on 17 September, 2012, the court observed that wife herself has clearly stated that she does not want to live with husband in any condition and she only wants maintenance, it seems that to get maintenance is the only cause for teasing husband. Wife herself is at fault is at her own will is living separately without justification, is not entitled to get any maintenance. She has also admitted in paragraph 4 of her evidence that her parents are old and they cannot do cultivation so she is doing cultivation over their land and in paragraph 6, she has admitted that her husband tried to bring her once and second time he called Panchayat at her village. The only reason which she assigned for not residing with applicant is that all unmarried brothers of applicant will keep her as their wife . As per discussion held by the court, Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence of both the couples and came on the wrong conclusion. On the other hand, trial court had very well appreciated the evidence in his order, and came to right conclusion that wife is residing separately without just and proper cause at her maternal home and looking after her parents and doing cultivation on the land of her parents and she wants that applicant/husband should come and reside with her at her  maternal home and for which he refused which is not possible for husband on whom there is liability of maintaining his old parents and unmarried brothers.

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

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...
Read more