Dr. R.K. Sood vs Usha Rani Sood on 29 August, 1996
13. As already discussed certain observations of the Division Bench in Ram Lal's case (supra) are on different facts and are of not much help to the husband.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.70 seconds)Documents citing
Ram Lal vs Smt. Surinder Kaur on 14 November, 1994
Dr. R.K. Sood vs Usha Rani Sood on 29 August, 1996
13. As already discussed certain observations of the Division Bench in Ram Lal's case (supra) are on different facts and are of not much help to the husband.
Hemant Sood S/O H K Sood vs Smt. Pooja Sood W/O Hemant Sood on 29 March, 2012
iv)Ram Lal Vs Surinder Kaur 1 (1996) DMC 191 (DB) Punjab and
Haryana High Court, wherein it has also been observed that:
"6. While granting the relief under Section 25 of the
Act, the Court has to keep in mind the following
considerations:
Rajeev Kapoor vs Rashmi Kapoor on 6 August, 2018
We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the
non-applicant/appellant-husband and are of the opinion that the said
judgment does not lay down an absolute law that in all the circumstances,
welfare of the child can be ignored.
Dr. Sunaina vs Major Ankush Batra on 3 March, 2011
unable to bear the litigation expenses and as such the said provision is not
attracted to the case of the petitioner. However, to maintain the child is not
the sole liability of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent is also bound to
maintain the child with regard to his daily needs i.e. education, health,
clothes etc. Thus, in the present circumstances of the case, though the
respondent is not bound to maintain his wife but he is to maintain his minor
child as per the status of the family who is in the custody of the petitioner.
The law cited by the trial court in the impugned order, delivered in case
Ram Lal vs. Surinder Kaur 1995 (1) P.L.R. 527 is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. It is also not disputed that the petitioner also
needs some litigation expenses.
1