Q: Explicate the citation of Smt. Seema Verma Vs Mahendra Verma on 4th December, 2019 ?

Ans: In a case of Madhya Pradesh High Court , Smt. Seema Verma vs Mahendra Verma on 4 th December, 2019, the high court in this case heard that the advocates of the parties and after perusing the record held that it is right that the application under Section 9 of the HMA filed by the wife has been rejected by the Lower Court, against which an appeal was filed before the high Court. The same was admitted but there was no stay granted in the appeal application. The high court further held that it is true that the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the HMA before the Trial Court has been allowed and the wife had not complied with the aforesaid direction and had unnecessarily refused to live with the husband with no sufficient reason.

It is a clear and admitted that as per the provision of Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. that if any person has a sufficient means, neglects and refuses to maintain her wife and children, he shall be liable for payment of maintenance to the wife. Section 9 of the HMA application filed by the husband had been allowed by the trial court and application under Section 9 of the HMA filed by the wife had been rejected on the ground that the wife had given statement that she does not want to live with her husband, which clears that the wife does not want to live with her husband. So maintenance cannot be granted in this situation.

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