UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance Rights for Second Wife: “Respondent Cannot Deny Maintenance, Taking Advantage of His Own Wrong”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the rights of women seeking maintenance in disputed marital scenarios. The court, presided over by Justice Rajesh S. Patil, delivered a significant verdict in the case of Mrs. Alka Bhausaheb Bhad vs. Mr. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad and Another, emphasizing the legal interpretation of ‘wife’ under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

The petitioner, Mrs. Alka Bhausaheb Bhad, had approached the court challenging the decision of the Sessions Court, Niphad, which had set aside an earlier order by the J.M.F.C., Yeola, granting her maintenance. Mrs. Bhad claimed to be the second wife of the respondent, Mr. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad, and sought maintenance citing her marriage and the birth of their children.

In his ruling, Justice Patil stated, “Respondent cannot be allowed to deny the maintenance claim to the petitioner, taking advantage of his own wrong.” This observation came after a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, including school documents of the children and testimonies confirming the marriage.

The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including the notable cases of Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, Chanmuniya vs. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha, and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit. These precedents played a crucial role in the decision, especially in interpreting the term ‘wife’ in the context of Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

Justice Patil’s judgment underlined the purpose of Section 125 Cr.PC, which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy for maintenance to wives, children, and parents. The court reinstated the maintenance order by the J.M.F.C., Yeola, directing the respondent to clear the outstanding maintenance amount within two months. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the liberty to file a fresh application for the enhancement of the maintenance amount.

This judgment marks a significant step in acknowledging the complexities surrounding marital relationships and the legal rights of women in maintenance claims, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding social justice.

Decided on : 14-12-2023

MRS. ALKA BHAUSAHEB BHAD @ ALKA DAGADU SHELKE Vs. MR. BHAUSAHEB RAMRAO BHAD AND OTHER

 

Latest Legal News