tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83674449228930464012024-02-19T22:57:30.658-08:00Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act JudgementsPraveenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275764466843892885noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8367444922893046401.post-67749440760855983942009-07-05T07:50:00.000-07:002009-07-05T07:51:26.670-07:00Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008<br />The Noble Justice Dhingra in action again. This time delivers justice in a HMA<br />case, Parnab Kumar Chakarborthy Vs Ruma Chakarborthy-2008<br />Here is what he had to say:<br />• 3. The petitioner in his petition has stated that the learned Court has taken<br />into account his gross salary while his net salary after deduction was<br />hardly Rs.5,000/-. He had to maintain two houses. He was working in<br />Bhiwadi in Rajasthan as Shift In charge, his daughter from the earlier<br />deceased wife was living at his ancestral house at Rai Barelli with his<br />ailing mother. Thus, he had to maintain two units; one at Rai Barelli and<br />other at Rajasthan. He also pleaded that the learned ADJ had not<br />taken into account the fact that the wife was a professional<br />beautician, who had done diploma in beauty-culture and hair<br />dressing and in the bio data supplied to him at the time of marriage,<br />it was stated that she was a freelance beautician doing the work of<br />beautician. He further stated that the account of expenditure given<br />by the wife would show that she was living in luxury, which was not<br />possible out of the meager income of her father, who was a retired<br />Naval Officer and since she was qualified and was spending a lot so,<br />there was a presumption that she was earning and she had not come<br />to the Court with clean hands.<br />Here is the judgment:<br />Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008Praveenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275764466843892885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8367444922893046401.post-52641032276676577932009-07-05T07:47:00.000-07:002009-07-05T07:49:55.761-07:00woman who work need no maintenacePublication: Times Of India Delhi;Date: May 14, 2009;Section: Times City;Page: 4<br />‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’<br />Smriti Singh | TNN<br />New Delhi: Can a “well qualified” woman capable of getting a decent job seek maintenance from her “not so qualified”<br />husband? The trial court says no.<br />Dismissing the concept of women being the “weaker sex” and urging them to work rather than being dependent on<br />their “pati parmeshwar”, a district court rejected the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her mentally disturbed<br />and unemployed husband.<br />“True, an able-bodied person can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The<br />same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well-versed<br />cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case,” additional district<br />judge Rajender Kumar Shastri said.<br />“According to Hindu mythology, a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared<br />into oblivion now. Women are not parasites. The concept of “pati parmeshwar” has already been jettisoned and is<br />substituted by equal partner in life. We cannot allow this better half to remain a protege of her male partner for life,” ADJ<br />Shastri added.<br />Seeking a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month along with Rs 21,000 as litigation expenses, the woman had knocked<br />on the court’s door after her husband had filed a divorce case in the court alleging that his wife was having an affair with<br />an another man and was treating him cruelly.<br />In her petition, the woman said she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her father for<br />survival. She also claimed that her husband was employed and was earning Rs 20,000 per month as salary.<br />Her husband denied all the claims. Filing a reply through his counsel M K Magan, the man claimed that he was earlier<br />working in some shop and earned a meagre salary. After the turbulence in his married life, he lost his job. He alleged<br />that his wife had abandoned her son also and eloped with another man.<br />He also claimed that he was receiving treatment at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahadra.<br />During deliberations, the court found out that the applicant was unemployed. The court also noted that the woman was a<br />graduate and her husband had only cleared his senior secondary examination.<br />Cautious about not “pre judging” the case at the initial stage, the court after hearing the arguments, noted that it could<br />not shut its eyes from the allegations made by the husband which were supported with evidence. “It will be unjust to<br />emburden the husband to pay maintenance to the wife who is equally able bodied and rather more qualified and<br />competent to earn,” ADJ Shastri said while dismissing the application.<br />‘WIFE EQUALLY ABLE’<br />What the judge said<br />It will be unjust to burden the husband to pay an amount of maintenance to wife who is equally able and rather more<br />qualified and competent to earn With development of society, women are not parasites upon male members of their<br />family The vestiges of male chauvinism are being weeded out. We cannot allow this better half (woman) to remain<br />protege of her male partner forever NOT THE FIRST TIME<br />January ’09<br />A court in Karkardooma had ordered a woman to pay her husband maintenance this year<br />‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk...<br />1 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AM<br />February ’09<br />Court rejected maintenance plea of woman stating she cannot seek maintenance to enrich her lifestyle<br />May 13, ’09<br />Woman denied maintenance for being more qualified and capable to work<br />‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk...<br />2 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AMPraveenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275764466843892885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8367444922893046401.post-3738539747858195082009-07-05T07:45:00.000-07:002009-07-05T07:46:51.896-07:00HMA 24 Judgemetns<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CADMINI%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CADMINI%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> </p><p class="MsoNormal">1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay)
<br />BOMBAY HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Sangeeta Piyush Raj
<br />Vs
<br />Piyush
<br />Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial
<br />proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not
<br />necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu
<br />Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under
<br />Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable -
<br />However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the
<br />Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
<br />Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- -
<br />
<br />2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan)
<br />RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Smt.Gayatri Singh
<br />Vs
<br />Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh & Anr.
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance -
<br />Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance
<br />rightly rejected.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- ------
<br />
<br />------------ --------- --
<br />
<br />1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.)
<br />MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Smt.Indira Gangele
<br />Vs
<br />Shailendra Kumar Gangele
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the
<br />maintenance pendente lite is from the date of application - if
<br />specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of
<br />institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In
<br />case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding,
<br />order may be made operative from date of order.
<br />------------ --------- --------- --
<br />1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala)
<br />KERALA HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Nandakumar Parrat
<br />Vs
<br />Sreekala Rani
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient
<br />income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed?
<br />Held -No.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- ------
<br />------------ --------- ---
<br />2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras)
<br />MADRAS HIGH COURT
<br />Rohini
<br />Vs
<br />R.Durairaj
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband
<br />only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient
<br />means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly
<br />dismissed by trial Court.
<br />------------ --------- ---------
<br />2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H)
<br />PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
<br />Kuldip Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur
<br />Vs
<br />Karam Singh
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendente lite to
<br />the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance -
<br />Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It
<br />is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever -
<br />Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are
<br />equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband
<br />ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month -
<br />Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from
<br />the date of filing of the revision.
<br />------------ --------- --
<br />1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan)
<br />RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
<br />Govind Singh
<br />Vs
<br />Smt.Vidya
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from
<br />earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.</p> 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay)
<br />BOMBAY HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Sangeeta Piyush Raj
<br />Vs
<br />Piyush
<br />Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial
<br />proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not
<br />necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu
<br />Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under
<br />Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable -
<br />However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the
<br />Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
<br />Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- -
<br />
<br />2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan)
<br />RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Smt.Gayatri Singh
<br />Vs
<br />Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh & Anr.
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance -
<br />Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance
<br />rightly rejected.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- ------
<br />
<br />------------ --------- --
<br />
<br />1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.)
<br />MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Smt.Indira Gangele
<br />Vs
<br />Shailendra Kumar Gangele
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the
<br />maintenance pendente lite is from the date of application - if
<br />specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of
<br />institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In
<br />case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding,
<br />order may be made operative from date of order.
<br />------------ --------- --------- --
<br />1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala)
<br />KERALA HIGH COURT
<br />
<br />Nandakumar Parrat
<br />Vs
<br />Sreekala Rani
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient
<br />income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed?
<br />Held -No.
<br />
<br />------------ --------- ------
<br />------------ --------- ---
<br />2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras)
<br />MADRAS HIGH COURT
<br />Rohini
<br />Vs
<br />R.Durairaj
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband
<br />only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient
<br />means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly
<br />dismissed by trial Court.
<br />------------ --------- ---------
<br />2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H)
<br />PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
<br />Kuldip Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur
<br />Vs
<br />Karam Singh
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendente lite to
<br />the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance -
<br />Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It
<br />is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever -
<br />Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are
<br />equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband
<br />ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month -
<br />Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from
<br />the date of filing of the revision.
<br />------------ --------- --
<br />1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan)
<br />RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
<br />Govind Singh
<br />Vs
<br />Smt.Vidya
<br />Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
<br />pendente lite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from
<br />earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.<p></p> Praveenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02275764466843892885noreply@blogger.com0