JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS Vs. HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 19,2014
JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS
Appellant
VERSUS
HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHAIL KUMARI DEVI VS. KRISHAN BHAGWAN PATHAK ALIAS KISHUN B PATHAK [REFERRED TO]Cited Judgements :-
S ANURADHA VS. R VENKATESH [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-423] [REFERRED TO]PUSHPA & ORS VS. RAM AVATAR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-164] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHJEET KAUR & ANOTHER VS. TARANJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-467] [REFERRED]
BABITA VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-391] [REFERRED]
POONAM BHARDWAJ VS. ASHISH ABROL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-220] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VASANTRAO AKOTKAR VS. MAYA SANJAY AKOTKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-188] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA SAIFI VS. MOHD SHAHID [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN BAI VS. RAMESH KUMAR PATHARIYA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-174] [REFERRED TO]
MUNESHWAR PRADHAN VS. RITA PRADHAN, W/O MUNESHWAR PRADHAN [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA VERMA AND ORS. VS. MADHUR VERMA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT VERMA VS. SANGEETA VERMA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-322] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEER DATTA KADAM VS. SUPRIYA SAMEER KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2019-1-248] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA VS. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-241] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA KARKI VS. RAJESH KARKI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR ALAM KHAN VS. HASINA BANO NOOR ALAM [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED NISHA BANU VS. MOHAMED RAFI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD GUPTA VS. SHEELA DEVI, WIFE OF GANGA PRASAD GUPTA [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR MUKHERJEE AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
JAHANARA BEGUM, W/O MD. RUSTOM ALI BHUYAN, D/O LATE AKBAR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2016-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
DOLLY AND ORS. VS. ARVIND [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-124] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS BHUTANI VS. STATE & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-162] [REFERRED TO]
LOPAMUDRA KONWAR BHUYAN VS. SURAJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-120] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SABHARWAL & ANR VS. JITENDER SABHARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
CHHEDAN YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
MD ALAMGIR ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSUYA VS. NAGESH K. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-251] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPABAI VS. MADAN [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY ROHIT VS. JYOTI ROHIT [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-279] [REFERRED TO]
RIDHAM (MINOR) THROUGH HER MOTHER RAMAN KUMARI VS. VISHAL DHARWAL [LAWS(HPH)-2017-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-161] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. LINCY [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ VERMA VS. PADMA @ PAYAL VERMA & ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-233] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred by a wife and a minor daughter. The Family Court directed payment of interim maintenance to wife and minor daughter @ Rs. 6,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). Interim maintenance was also ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act') @ 3,000/- per month payable to both. Eventually, the Family Court disposed the maintenance proceedings finally by the Order dated 31.01.2009. By this Order the Family Court granted maintenance in favour of daughter @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of judgment. The Family Court, however, took the view that the appellant wife would not be entitled to receive any amount more than the interim maintenance which she is receiving under the H.M. Act.
(3.)On the Appellant's application for maintenance made for herself and her children, the Family Court granted maintenance in the sum of Rs 5,000/- only to her daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The son was living with the father who was maintaining him and was therefore not granted maintenance. The main ground for denying maintenance to the Appellant was that she was found to have been working before her marriage and the Family Court was of the view that she could earn her living even now after the separation and therefore she was denied maintenance. This view did not find favour with the High Court, which noted that the Appellant had stopped working after her marriage and had given birth to two children. She had been only looking after the family and had therefore stopped working. The High Court thus reversed the Order of the Family Court and granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. This was however granted from the date of the order.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred by a wife and a minor daughter. The Family Court directed payment of interim maintenance to wife and minor daughter @ Rs. 6,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). Interim maintenance was also ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act') @ 3,000/- per month payable to both. Eventually, the Family Court disposed the maintenance proceedings finally by the Order dated 31.01.2009. By this Order the Family Court granted maintenance in favour of daughter @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of judgment. The Family Court, however, took the view that the appellant wife would not be entitled to receive any amount more than the interim maintenance which she is receiving under the H.M. Act.
(3.)On the Appellant's application for maintenance made for herself and her children, the Family Court granted maintenance in the sum of Rs 5,000/- only to her daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The son was living with the father who was maintaining him and was therefore not granted maintenance. The main ground for denying maintenance to the Appellant was that she was found to have been working before her marriage and the Family Court was of the view that she could earn her living even now after the separation and therefore she was denied maintenance. This view did not find favour with the High Court, which noted that the Appellant had stopped working after her marriage and had given birth to two children. She had been only looking after the family and had therefore stopped working. The High Court thus reversed the Order of the Family Court and granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. This was however granted from the date of the order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.