Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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