Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)

Sri Karunakaran Praveen vs Mrs M V Roopa on 18 July, 2014

18. Learned Counsel for petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Smt.Jai Rani vs. Om Prakash Saini2. The facts obtaining in that case, is that husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, whence respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 for maintenance, pendente lite and litigation expenses which when ordered to be paid, the failure on the part of the husband to pay the amount, the proceeding in the matrimonial case was stayed and the question was whether the wife is entitled to recover from the husband maintenance amount only uptill date of stay and not thereafter. Neither facts nor the question that arose for decision making in that case are similar or identical to the facts of this case and therefore, that judgment is unavailable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document

Asha Devi vs Pominder Kumar Chhabra on 7 September, 2006

In Jai Rani's case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance would be only for a period up to the stay of the proceedings, but in case he revives the proceedings, he would be liable to pay all arrears of maintenance. The question is whether the application filed by the respondent would amount to revival of the proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1