Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

"No Escape from Duty": Patna High Court Upholds Maintenance Order, Stresses Responsibility in Matrimonial Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of marital responsibilities, the Patna High Court, led by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Anup Kumar Pandit Vs. Sunita Devi and Others, emphasizing the accountability of spouses in providing maintenance.

In his observation, Justice Prasad stated, "The exceptions would not apply as it is not the case of the petitioner that his wife was living in adultery or had refused to live with him." This statement was pivotal in dismissing the revision application filed against the maintenance order.

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence and testimonies, confirming the marriage between Anup Kumar Pandit and Sunita Devi, which the petitioner had denied. The judgment further highlighted the husband's underreported income, acknowledging his profession as an MBBS doctor. Despite the petitioner's claim of earning only Rs.10,000 per month, the court upheld the Family Court's decision on his income for maintenance calculation.

The decision addressed the duration of maintenance entitlement, clarifying that the wife is entitled to maintenance until her death, and the daughter until her marriage. In an impactful statement, the court noted, "Maintenance arrears deemed heritable by legal heirs post wife's death," thereby ensuring the continuation of support for the dependent daughter.

The court also addressed the issue of non-payment of maintenance despite the existing court order. It directed the entire arrear amount to be realized from the petitioner with an interest rate of 6% per annum, alongside a litigation cost of Rs. 25,000. This part of the ruling particularly highlights the court's stance on enforcing maintenance orders and the seriousness with which such obligations are to be treated.

The judgment referenced several significant cases, including Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr., and Rajnesh vs. Neha and Anr., further reinforcing the legal principles governing maintenance in matrimonial disputes.

Representing advocates Mr. Anjani Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav for the opposite parties played crucial roles in presenting their respective cases.

This judgment from the Patna High Court stands as a testament to the legal system's commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of individuals in matrimonial relationships, emphasizing the inescapable responsibility of providing maintenance.

Decided on : 18-12-2023

ANUP KUMAR PANDIT Vs. SUNITA DEVI AND OTHER

 

Similar News