Q: Explain the citation of Smt. Renu vs Hiralal @ Harish on 5 March, 2002 ?

Ans: During a case of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Renu vs Hiralal @ Harish on 5 March, 2002 it was held that the wife had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance relief alleging on her husband that after the marriage, she was ill-treated for demand of dowry as well as the husband deserted her without any valid cause.The wife was compelled to live with her mother. She has no source of income to maintain her whereas the husband is a businessman having a Kirana Store and is also doing the work of Commission Agent. She had prayed for Rupees three thousand per month as maintenance and filed a separate application for interim maintenance. In accordance with the wife, her husband earns rupees ten thousand per month. The application was supported by affidavit. 

The husband, in reply, submitted before the lower Court that her wife of her own will, voluntarily residing separately. He wants to keep, and live with, her for which, he had filed a suit for RCR which was decreed ex parte in favour of the husband, but the wife is not complying with the judgment and decree of RCR. He had also submitted that the wife is earning fifty to one hundred rupees a day by doing tailoring work and she is able to maintain herself whereas he is doing service and getting total income of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He has no additional source of income. Along with the reply, he submitted affidavit and also the documents and decree regarding RCR. The high court held that the lower Court was required to see the prima facie case for grant of interim maintenance if a husband having sufficient means neglects his wife who is unable to maintain herself. The husband has filed sufficient material i.e., decree of RCR, thereafter, filed execution proceedings and in all the proceedings, the wife did not appear and also did not allege that the decree was acquired by playing fraud. Apart from this, before deciding the application for grant of interim maintenance, the husband also made a serious and conscious effort for reconciliation as well as keeping and maintaining the wife, but she has denied flatly as mentioned above without assigning any reason. 

Further, the High Court held that the revisional Court has not committed any error of law and fact while setting aside the order of grant of interim maintenance in favour of the wife according to the facts as well as circumstances of the case.

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