Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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