Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

"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

 

Latest Legal News