IBC | 'Role Of Navigation' In Policy Making Suffices To Bar Related Party From CoC, 'Driving Seat' Control Under Sec 29A Not Required: Supreme Court Section 31 CrPC | Multiple Life Sentences In Single Trial Cannot Run Consecutively, Must Be Superimposed: Supreme Court Section 43D(7) UAPA | Subsequent Visa Overstay Doesn't Convert Lawful Entry Into 'Illegal Entry'; Bar Inapplicable To Default Bail Under Sec 167(2) CrPC: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Rebutted When Accused Proves Prior Intimation Of Lost Cheque And Discredits Complainant's Financial Capacity: Karnataka High Court Will | Both Attestation And Testator's Signature Need Not Be Established By Same Witness; Beneficiary Competent To Identify Handwriting: Madras High Court Writ Maintainable For Contractual Dues If Liability Is Admitted; Paucity Of Funds No Ground To Withhold Payment: Allahabad High Court Accused Has No Criminal Antecedents: Karnataka High Court Rejects State's 'Habitual Stalker' Claim, Grants Bail Under Section 483 BNSS Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Used To Circumvent Limitation By Challenging Consent Decree To Revive Time-Barred Underlying Claims: Delhi High Court Section 346 BNSS | Remand Warrant Mandatory After Taking Cognizance; Continued Detention Illegal If Magistrate Adjourns Without Specific Remand Order: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Enhances Land Acquisition Compensation To ₹20 Per Square Yard For Maharajpur Land, Citing High Potentiality Near New Delhi Apartment Ownership Bye-Laws | Default In Paying Common Expenses Doesn't Bar Members From Requisitioning SGM For Removal Of Managers: Calcutta High Court Railways Act | Failure Of Railways To Prepare Jamatalashi Report Under 2003 Rules Precludes Plea Of Passenger Negligence: Bombay High Court Issuance Of Show Cause Notice Under Section 74 CGST Act Does Not Warrant Writ Interference Merely Due To Alleged Inadequacy In Audit Reply Consideration: Delhi High Court Model Employer Must Act Compassionately: Kerala High Court Quashes Union Bank's Mechanical Rejection Of Transfer Exemption Requests Made By Women Officers Dishonour Of Cheque | Accused Can Rebut Statutory Presumptions Under Sec 139 NI Act By Establishing Probable Defence Through Preponderance Of Probabilities: Madras High Court TP Act | Suit For Injunction & Declaration Against Alienation Not Maintainable Under Agreement To Sell Without Claiming Specific Performance: Madhya Pradesh High Court Economic Offence Cases Involving Large-Scale Fraud Do Not Merit 'Exceptional Remedy' Of Pre-Arrest Bail: Orissa High Court Old Pension Scheme | Subsequent Recruitment Merely Exempting Applicants From Fee Is De Novo, Cannot Relate Back To Pre-Cut-Off Advertisement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Preventive Detention Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act | Failure To Seek Bail Cancellation Does Not Per Se Vitiate Detention Order: Kerala High Court Determination Of Victim's Age Under Section 94 JJ Act Must Follow Statutory Hierarchy Of Documents: Madras High Court

Supreme Court Slams 'Shocking' Reduction of Maintenance for Women: 'Drastic Cut Unjustified'

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized a "shocking" reduction in maintenance awarded to women under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on September 15, 2023, reinstated the importance of ensuring adequate support for women.

The case, titled *Richa Devi vs. Gautam KR Pandey @ Gautam Pandey*, revolved around the High Court's decision to drastically reduce the monthly maintenance amount for a woman from Rs. 5,000 to a mere Rs. 1,000. The Supreme Court, in its scathing observation, found no justification for such a drastic reduction, emphasizing the significance of fair and reasonable maintenance.

In the judgment, the Court stated, "It is shocking that the maintenance amount has been so drastically reduced to a petty amount of Rs. 1,000 per month for a lady to maintain herself." This observation underscores the Court's commitment to safeguarding the rights of women in matters of personal maintenance.

The judgment further emphasized the duty of the court to ensure that women receive adequate support and that reductions to unreasonably low amounts are not justified. It highlighted the need to consider the financial well-being and dignity of women while determining maintenance amounts.

Additionally, the judgment reaffirmed the Court's authority to subject High Court orders to judicial review when they are deemed manifestly unjust. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and reinstated the Trial Court's award of Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance.

This landmark decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of women. It establishes a precedent for fair and reasonable maintenance awards, setting a benchmark for future cases in family law.

Date of Decision: September 15, 2023

RICHA DEVI   vs GAUTAM KR PANDEY @ GAUTAM PANDEY       

Latest Legal News