Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Kamadi Bhavani vs Kamadi Lakshmanaswamy Lakshmana Rao ... on 11 March, 1994

Raj Kumar vs Sunita Devi And Another on 9 April, 2014

He has further relied upon Haizaz Pashaw Vs. Gulzar Banu and another, 2002(3) ILR (Kerala) 149; Kamadi Bhavani Vs. Kamadi Lakshmanaswamy Lakshmana Rao, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 98 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); Smt.Kesari Devi Vs. Jagdev Singh, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 359 (Himachal Pradesh High Court); Brij Ballabh Pandey Vs. Smt.Israwati Devi, 1996(3) CCR 195 (Allahabad High Court); Maddina Subbamma Vs. Maddina Venkateswarlu and State, 1992 Civil Court Cases, 609 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); Mohd. Shakeel Vs. Smt. Shaheena, 1987 (1) RCR (Criminal) 569 (Delhi High Court); Sardar Surjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Rajendra Kaur, 1989 Civil Court Cases 571 (Allahabad High Court) and K.Narayan Rao Vs. Bhagyalakshmi, 1984(1) Karnataka Law Journal, 451 (Karnataka High Court).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Manju vs Sumer Singh & Ors. on 17 May, 2017

Ld. LAC has relied on case of Kamadi Bhavani Vs Kamadi Lakshmanaswamy Lakshmana Rao & Ors. cited at 1994 CR.L.J. 1827 to state that ex parte decree u/s 9 HMA does not bar wife from claiming maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC. With due respect, I am unable to agree with the ratio laid in this judgment. The said judgment having been pronounced by A.P. Manju Vs Sumer Singh & Ors. 2/3 High Court is not binding on this court. In view of the clear provision in law, complainant cannot claim maintenance after it has been observed that she willfully deserted the company of R-1 without sufficient reason. It is also to be noted that in the said judgment Hon'ble A.P. High Court observed that petition u/s 9 HMA filed merely to avoid maintenance is no ground to deny maintenance. However in the present case, the petition u/s 9 HMA was filed before the present case. As such, complainant is not entitled to any maintenance. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that respondent no. 1 should pay Rs. 1500/- per month for each of the two children till they attain majority. This maintenance shall be payable w.e.f. filing of the present petition i.e. December, 2014.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1