Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 915 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014

Smt. Farjana vs Rashid on 26 April, 2022

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Priya Mishra vs Ram Binod Jha ..... Opposite Party on 11 August, 2023

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document

Arshiya Rizvi And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 May, 2022

24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha (supra) has observed that High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. The Supreme Court has recorded the finding that the wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself. However, where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good, wife would be entitled to maintenance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zahir Abdullah & Anr. vs Omar Abdullah on 31 August, 2023

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Amit Gupta vs Rachna Rani on 7 October, 2022

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Kalarani vs Jeeva Ashok on 22 December, 2017

In the judgment reported in AIR 2015 SC 554 (Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha ) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the wife states she had great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good the wife would be entitled to maintenance. In the very same judgment it has also been held that merely because the wife was earning something it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document

Satish Kumar Aggarwal vs Subha Aggarwal on 19 October, 2022

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is well qualified and has been earning Rs.40,000/- per month and, therefore, maintenance should not have been granted to her has no force since the petitioner has stated that she is suffering from coronary disease and is not working anywhere at present. The petitioner on the other hand before the learned Trial Court was not able to place on record any document to prove that the respondent is earning at present. It is settled law that it is not the capability to earn, but the actually earning which is the key to decide or reject claim for maintenance. The learned Appellate Court has rightly relied on the case of Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that merely because wife is earning something, would not make a ground to reject her claim for maintenance more particularly when her earnings are not placed on record. The observations of the Apex Court read as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Vinod Jaiswal vs Renu Chaudhary And Anr on 26 March, 2025

In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next