Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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