Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12942 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020

Binod Kumar Singh vs Smt. Sushma Devi on 5 December, 2022

The learned court below is directed to proceed in accordance with law in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha. Considering the fact that much time has elapsed, the learned court below shall make all endeavour to pass a final decision on the point of quantum of maintenance within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs Sangeeta on 1 July, 2025

29. However, it must be clarified that ad-interim maintenance is not to be granted as a matter of routine in every case. It is a discretionary relief, to be exercised judiciously by the Court only where the facts and circumstances so warrant. The very premise of ad-interim maintenance is to address urgent and immediate financial hardship faced by the claimant, particularly when the decision on the main application for interim maintenance is likely to take time. If there is sufficient material on record indicating the respondent's admitted income, or there is an unreasonable delay in the respondent filing the affidavit of assets and liabilities, and the claimant is left without any means of sustenance, the Court may justifiably step in to grant ad-interim relief after hearing both the parties. However, where no such urgency is demonstrated, nor there is anything on record that non-grant of immediate maintenance of sustenance will cause grave hardship to the petitioner, the Court must expedite disposing of application for interim maintenance, as per the directions in decision of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), instead of granting ad-interim maintenance as a matter of routine.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Nirmal Kumar Fukan vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 12 May, 2025

35. Reverting to the facts of this case, neither party has chosen to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), disclosing all sources of income, in compliance with the order dated 23.5.2024. The office report dated 11.12.2024 reflects that notice was duly received by the respondent-wife, and a Vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf. Upon perusal, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court, as the record indicates that the revisionist-husband holds a senior position in Gail India Limited.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Niraj Kumar Dhakre Alias Pintu vs Smt Karishma on 19 September, 2024

(i) Communication to all Principal Judges of the Family Courts in the State of U.P. with a further direction that they may ensure strict compliance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. (supra) and our directions in paragraphs 21 to 37 of this order. For that purpose, they may hold regular interactive sessions involving all subordinate officers at their respective stations and such meetings be repeated whenever any new judicial officer joins the Family Court establishment, at that station.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S D Singh - Full Document

Sumit Saurav Aged About 33 Yrs. S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 April, 2024

18. The parties to appear before the learned family court on 30th April, 2024 with the required affidavit in terms of the terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another (supra) and observation made above. Upon their appearance, the learned Family Court is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law with regard to the quantum of maintenance after giving due opportunity to the parties concerned by 14th of June, 2024.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Tasmeer Qureshi vs Asfia Muzaffar on 29 October, 2025

73. In conclusion, this Court hopes that the aforesaid observations and guidelines are kept in consideration by the learned Family Courts and Mahila Courts while dealing with petitions filed by a spouse/children seeking maintenance. It is also of utmost importance CRL.REV.P. (MAT.) 123/2024 Page 41 of 42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:29.10.2025 19:59:56 that the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), which provides a comprehensive and guiding framework, is always followed to ensure that orders granting maintenance, interim or final, are passed with fairness, uniformity, and clarity.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Rohin Paul vs Sapna Paul on 7 July, 2025

55. Further, in order to determine the quantum of maintenance CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 55 of 69 payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B - III of the judgment Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr. (supra). The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinay Manoranjan Pai vs Radhika Appuraya Shenoy on 9 February, 2023

18. The rest of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are the judgments of this Court since I have already held that question of law framed in the first paragraph of the judgment has been squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha (supra) and in particular paragraph 78 of the judgment, it is not necessary to refer to the judgments of this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Jeevanjyot Kaur Bansal vs Kulvinder Singh And Anr on 20 March, 2024

10. The factual matrix is not in dispute that the filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities has been directed by the Sessions Court at the appellate stage after the final adjudication of DV application by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The judgment of Trial Court is not on record but it appears from the pleadings that by the judgment dated 18th February, 2020, the Trial Court has held that there was acts of domestic violence committed by respondent no.1-husband and has directed the payment of maintenance of Rs.1 lakh each towards the wife and the minor child and compensation of Rs.5 lakh. The decision in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) was delivered on 4th November, 2020 post the passing of judgment of the Trial Court dated 18th February, 2020 in the instant case. Even though the decision of the Apex Court is rendered subsequent to the judgment of trial Court, the Apex Court has directed the filing of affidavits of the disclosures in all pending proceedings. The appellate Court is correct in saying that appeal is continuation of proceedings but has failed to consider whether "pending proceedings" includes the proceedings initiated challenging the final judgment of the trial Court or is applicable to proceedings challenging interim orders of Patil-SR(ch) 6 of 16 wp-st-1913-2024.doc maintenance under section 23 of the DV Act. This is the crux of the matter which has not been dealt with by the appellate Court and the same is considered hereunder.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next