Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Modifies Maintenance Order: Appellant Concealed Compensation Receipts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has modified a maintenance order in a case involving maintenance granted to a wife and son. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal on September 22, 2023, addressed the appellant's challenge to the High Court's modification of the maintenance order.

The High Court had altered the maintenance order to make it payable from the date of the application for maintenance, a decision contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the maintenance granted was excessive, and there were concerns regarding the starting date for payment.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the appellant had concealed compensation amounts received by him, significantly impacting the assessment of maintenance. Compensation amounts of Rs. 42,20,202/- and Rs. 11,36,861/- were received by the appellant due to the acquisition of his property. Furthermore, an affidavit filed by the appellant disclosed that he had received a total compensation of Rs. 82,33,531/- between January 2003 and June 2012.

In light of this concealed information, the Supreme Court ordered that the maintenance payable by the appellant from July 1, 2012, should be at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per month, as per the Family Court's order dated November 19, 2018. However, for the period from the date of filing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) until June 30, 2022, the total amount payable by the appellant to the respondent No. 1-wife and child shall be at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

The judgment concluded by specifying that the arrears as of the date of the judgment shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1-wife within a three-month period, with adjustments made for amounts previously paid by the appellant, including a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid pursuant to a previous order.

This judgment highlights the importance of full and honest disclosure of financial information in maintenance cases and serves as a significant legal precedent in matters of maintenance modification.

Date of Decision: September 22, 2023

DHIRENDER KUMAR vs BALA & ANR.     

 

Latest Legal News