MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Directed to wife to pay Maintenance – Bombay HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court has declared that the application of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 to a divorce order granted to a husband and wife cannot be limited by doing so.

"Section 25 needs to be looked at as a provision for destitute wife/husband. The clauses would have to be construed broadly so as to rescue the remedial entailments," the Justice Bharati Dangre panel ruled.

According to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the wife petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The petition was granted, and the couples' marriage was thereafter dissolved. The husband (respondent) filed a petition, asking for the wife to pay him Rs. 15,000 per month in permanent alimony.

A warrant for collection of arrears may be issued against the wife, and the amounts owing and payable may be withheld from her wages and deposited with the court. This was the learned judge's instruction.

The order made by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, has angered the wife.

After examining Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1955, the High Court determined that both sections are enabling provisions and grant the indigent spouse the right to pursue maintenance in the form of permanent alimony and maintenance or pendente lite.

According to the bench, "The provision of maintenance or permanent alimony being a beneficial provision for the indigent spouse, the said section can be invoked by either of the spouses, where a decree of any kind governed by Sections 9 to 13 has been passed and marriage tie is broken, disrupted, or adversely affected by such court decree. The application of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 to a divorce decree granted to a husband and wife cannot be excluded in order to limit its reach.

D.D-26TH FEBRUARY, 2022.

Given the foregoing, the petition was denied by the High Court.

Bhagyashri Vs Jagdish

Latest Legal News