Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Amod Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 23 May, 2008

Bhagirath Lal Sharma vs Baby Taruna on 15 December, 2012

vs. State of UP and Anr., (Supra), in extraordinary circumstances the maintenance can be awarded from the date of application. The Ld. M.M. has not also considered whether there were extraordinary circumstances in the present case to entitle the petitioner to get maintenance from the date of application till she gets marriage or attains majority whichever is earlier as in the present case the date of application is 26.7.2002 and the date of order was 13.7.2012. As per argument or petitioner/respondent petitioner is unmarried but she attained majority before passing of order. If the extraordinary circumstances are not considered in granting the maintenance to the petitioner/respondent from the date of application, this may lead to injustice as practically she will not be able to get any amount if order of maintenance is enforced since the date of order.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 January, 2024

"10. Now a look at the judgment of this Court in the case of Amod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (62) ACC 591. This judgment takes a view that upon attaining majority an illegitimate/legitimate child including an unmarried daughter, is not entitled to claim maintenance, but it does not take into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Noor Saba Khatoon and Jagdish Jugtawat (both supra), wherein it has been held that notwithstanding the ineligibility of a major unmarried daughter to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, yet an order granting maintenance to such a daughter is not liable to be interfered with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings provided she has a right to claim maintenance from her father under the personal law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maheshbhai Vamanbhai Baviskar vs Ashaben Maheshbhai Baviskar on 22 August, 2024

It may be noticed that the Parliament in its wisdom has enabled only a minor child whether legitimate or illegitimate to claim maintenance under S. 125(1)(b) and only one exception has been made by enacting sub- section (c) which enables the child which has attained majority to claim maintenance. That is a case where the child by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that they have any physical or mental abnormality or injury or on that account they are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, it is clear that the case of petitioners 1 and 2 does not come under either sub-clause (b) or (c) of S. 125(1) and the case of the 3rd petitioner subsequent to 30-4-90 does not also come under any of these sub-sections. In this view of the matter, the decision relied upon has no application to a case arising under S. 125(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in negativing the claim made by petitioner 1 and 2 restricting the claim of 3rd petitioner to that date. 3.2. Decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amod Kumar Saivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 (0) AIJEL-UP 331186 wherein in para-8 to 13, it is observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document
1