Q: Elaborate the citation of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed ?

Ans: The High Court of Telangana replied the question if a wife who is earning, be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home, though the case of Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed,( Tr.C.M.P.Nos.758 and 760 of 2018) which was decided through the learned bench led by M.S.Ramachandra Rao. 

In the present case, the family court dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that the wife herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month.
The court ordered the first respondent to pay 7 Thousand per month to each petitioner 2 and 3 that were his children towards interim maintenance, from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case and the petition to the extent of petitioner 1 that is the wife was dismissed.  The wife being aggrieved by the order approached the HC for revision.
Once the case was brought before the High Court,  the court referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court which says that, if the wife is earning, it cannot be operated as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
x

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