Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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