Rani & Anr. vs Dinesh on 2 December, 2020
Appeal No.121/2001 decided
on 05.01.2001, R.D. Vs. B.D. reported as 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 9526 [DB] and Sujit Kumar Vs. Vandana
reported as (2016) 233 DLT 39 [DB])."
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)Documents citing
R D vs B D on 31 July, 2019
Mamta Bhardwaj vs Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj & Anr. on 29 October, 2021
The Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) while
approving the judgments of the High Court of Bombay in Vishal Vs.
Aparna, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207 and the High Court of Delhi in R.D.
Vs. B.D. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526, has observed in light of the question
of overlapping jurisdictions for grant of maintenance that Section 20(1)(d)
of the DV Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under the DV Act
would be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and any other law for the time
being in force. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the legislative
mandate envisages grant of maintenance to wife under various statutes.
There is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and Section 125
of the Cr.PC or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The only obligation imposed on the wife would be
to disclose the earlier maintenance being granted to her in the previously
instituted proceedings so that the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent
proceedings could be fixed taking into account the maintenance already
CM(M) 213/2021 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAMTA ARYA
Signing Date:29.10.2021
13:22:23
awarded in favour of the wife in any previously instituted proceedings. The
directions passed by the Supreme Court are set out below:
Taruna Yadav vs Gajender Singh Yadav on 11 July, 2024
It would also be apposite to quote the observation of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Mamta Bhardwaj vs.
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj' (dated 29.10.2021) wherein it was
observed that that 'the Supreme Court in 'Rajnesh vs. Neha'
while approving the judgments of High Court of Bombay in
'Vishal vs. Aparna', 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207 and Delhi
High Court in 'R.D. vs. B.D' 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526, has
observed in the light of question of overlapping jurisdiction for
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav
Page 9 of 11
grant of maintenance that Sec. 20(1)(d) of the DV Act makes it
clear that the maintenance granted under the DV Act would be in
addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and any other law for
the time being in force. It was observed by the Supreme Court
that the legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to
wife under various statutes. There is no bar to seek maintenance
both under the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.PC or
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The only obligation imposed on the wife
would be to disclose the earlier maintenance being granted to her
in the previously instituted proceedings so that the quantum of
maintenance in the subsequent proceedings could be fixed taking
into account the maintenance already awarded in favour of the
wife in any previously instituted proceedings.
Smt. Niharika Yadav vs Mr. Manish Kumar Yadav on 18 December, 2019
Appeal No.121/2001 decided on 05.01.2001, R.D. Vs. B.D. reported as
2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526 [DB] and Sujit Kumar Vs. Vandana reported
as (2016) 233 DLT 39 [DB]).
1