Q: Explain the citation of SURJIT KAUR V. GURNAM SINGH on 10-08-2016 ?

Ans: In case of  Punjab & Haryana High Court, SURJIT KAUR V. GURNAM SINGH on 10-08-2016,  it was proved that the wife had left the company of her husband without any reasonable cause. It was also came in front that she claimed separation since 1986, but she filed the case of maintenance in the year 2007. It was also seen that both the husband & wife were old and aged. The husband was now in his late eighties and it had also seen from the records that he had no sufficient funds even to maintain himself. The wife had been residing with her son for over a period of ten years. All these facts were taken into consideration by the appellate Court while dismissing the claim for maintenance to the wife. The relevant findings by the appellate Court are cleared from perusal of Para 10 to 12 of the decision passed, the appellate court held that in the application, the wife has alleged that she was ill-treated in 1986, therefore, she had been living separately from her husband since 1986. The husband had submitted on the other hand that he got fractured in his leg in July, 2004 and his wife did not took care of him rather she deserted him without any reasonable cause. When the wife entered the witness box, she stated that she had been living separately from her husband since 1986 only. It is not her case that she was ill-treated in 1986 and because of this, she started living separately. Understandably, in the above said manner, the wife deserted her husband without any reasonable cause is true. In other words, it has been proved that the wife had been living away from her husband without any reasonable cause. Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. clears that in such a situation wife is not entitled to maintenance. The above said fact of the matter has completely escaped the notice of Trial court. The high Court held that there is another reason for rejecting the application of the wife. The wife is entitled to seek maintenance allowance only where she is unable to maintain herself. It was observed that she had been living separately from her husband and with her son, since 1986 and the application for claim of maintenance had been filed in 2007. That clears the fact that the wife was able to maintain herself for the period of 21 years. She nowhere explained as to how she lost her source of income suddenly after a long period of 21 years. In the absence of such an explanation, it is as assumed that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. Further the high court held that the Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes the husband liable only if he has sufficient means and then neglects his wife. It was proved earlier that the husband had not neglected his wife. Furthermore, the lower court had observed that the husband earns about Rs. 1800/- per month. Since, the husband is already 85 years of age; therefore, clearly, he needs medicines for his own well-being. So, the said amount is not sufficient to even maintain the husband. In other words, it is obvious that the husband does not have sufficient means to maintain his wife. So the husband is not liable to give any maintenance to her wife who had deserted her without any sufficient reason and also she is claiming the maintenance after a long period of 21 Years. So, the maintenance claim is denied to wife.

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