Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Biswanath Saha vs Sikha Saha on 7 June, 1986

Jashelal Agrawal Alias Jain vs Smt. Puspabati Agrawala on 12 August, 1998

5. In view of the divorce agreement referred to hereinabove, the marital relations have come to a terminus. By virtue thereof, the respondent had already contracted the second marriage. In other words, the first marriage has been put to an end. The appellant thereby became entitled to claim maintenance and will continue to do so, so long as she remains unmarried and she is unable to maintain herself in the cases of Mariyumma v. Mohammed Ibrahim AIR 1978 Ker 231 (FB); Mampokkattu Nanu v. Mampokkat Vasantha 1986 Cri LJ 652 (Ker); Biswanath Saha v. Sikha Saha (Calcutta) 1986 Cri LJ 1199 and L. Srinivasulu Reddy v. L. Ramalakshumma (1996) 3 CCR 352 (DB) (AP) similar view has been expressed entitling a wife to get maintenance even after a decree of divorce obtained against her on the ground of unreasonably withdrawing from the society of the husband.
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - P K Tripathy - Full Document

In Re: Rabindra Nath Roy vs Unknown on 21 July, 1994

Indeed, the learned Single Judge, on whose decision the learned Magistrate has relied (Biswanath Saha v. Sikha Saha, 1986 Cri. L.J. 1199 (Cal) has observed that when the Matrimonial Court decreed a suit for divorce on the finding that the wife has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than 2 years, it has to be accepted that she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient cause. Normally the finding of a competent Civil Court on a relevant issue is binding upon the Magistrate and, therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that at least during the subsistence of marriage, a husband can successfully resist the claim of his wife for maintenance on the ground that he has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion. On the basis of such a decree the learned Magistrate is bound to hold that the wife without any sufficient reason has refused to live with her husband and the application claiming maintenance is liable to be lost, looking to the provisions of the Section 125(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. The question which now arises for determination is whether, it would be open to the wife to claim maintenance after the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce following her refusal to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The answer in our view is clearly in the negative notwithstanding the fact that the expression wife within the meaning of Section 125, Cr.P.C. includes a divorcee, for the reason stated below. A wife, who during subsistence of marriage is disentitled to claim maintenance because of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion against her, commits a wrong if she refuses to comply with the decree and, therefore, if after the dissolution of marriage because of her not complying with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, she is allowed to claim maintenance, it would tantamount to allowing her to take advantage of her own wrong which law has always viewed with disfavour. It is no doubt true that the benign provision of Section 125, Cr.P.C. was enacted to ameliorate the economic condition of neglected and discarded wives and the object was to prevent destitution and vagrancy. But if in spite of such statutory object, the claim of the wife for maintenance during subsistence of marriage can be defeated on the basis of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion, it does not stand to reason that she should be allowed to claim maintenance after the marriage is dissolved because of her flouting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rabindra Nath Roy vs Anjana Roy on 21 July, 1994

Indeed, the learned Single Judge, on whose decision the learned Magistrate has relied (Biswanath Saha v. Sikha Saha, 1986 Cr.L.J. 1199) has observed that when the Matrimonial Court decreed a suit for divorce on the finding that the wife has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than 2 years, it has to be accepted that she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient cause. Normally the finding of a competent Civil Court on a relevant issue is binding upon the Magistrate and, therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that at least during the subsistence of marriage, a husband can successfully resist the claim of his wife for maintenance on the ground that he has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion. On the basis of such a decree the learned Magistrate is bound to hold that the wife without any sufficient reason has refused to live with her husband and the application claiming maintenance is liable to be lost, looking to the provisions of the Section 125(4) Code of Criminal Procedure. The question which now arise for determination is whether, it would be open to wife to claim maintenance after the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce following her refusal to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The answer in our view is clearly in the negative notwithstanding the fact that the expression wife within the meaning of Section 125 Cr.P.C. includes a divorce, for the reason stated below. A wife, who during subsistence of marriage is disentitled to claim maintenance because of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion against her, commits a wrong if she refuses to comply with the decree and, therefore, if after the dissolution of marriage because of her not complying with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, she is allowed to claim maintenance, it would tantamount to allowing her to take advantage qf her own wrong which law has always viewed with disfavour. It is no doubt true that the benign provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to ameliorate the economic condition of neglected and discarded wives and the object was to prevent destitution and vagrancy. But if inspite of such salutory object, the claim of the wife for maintenance during subsistence of marriage can be defeated on the basis of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of desertion, it does not, stand to reason that she should be allowed to claim maintenance after the marriage is dissolved because of her flouting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1