Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Debnarayan Halder vs Anushree Halder on 8 June, 2005

Latika Banerjee vs Ajoy @ Bablu Banerjee And Anr on 8 June, 2016

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 supported the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia. He has advanced his arguments that learned 1st revisional Court rightly dismissed the claim of petitioner for maintenance allowance as the petitioner has been voluntarily living away from her husband opposite party no. 1 without sufficient cause. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the opposite party no. 1 in view of the provisions of Section 125 (4), Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments he cited two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Debnarayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 3174 and the case of Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafulla Kumar Gain and Others reported in AIR 1997 (SC) 2077, a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sangeta Arun Mhasvade Vs. Arun Aba Mhasvade and Another reported in 1984 Cri.L.J. 1524 and a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Abul Ahad Vs. Smt. Nasreen Bano reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 688.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soma Rudra Sarma vs Santanu Rudra Sarma on 26 November, 2019

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated August 24, 2018 was defective, inasmuch as, although the learned Court below granted maintenance pendente lite for an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- wife + Rs.10,000/- son), the Court failed to mention the date from which such maintenance pendente lite ought to have been given. It is further urged that it is settled law that maintenance pendente lite ought to be given from the date of the application. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for modification of the order, directing the husband to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the date of filing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., on the date of filing of Misc. Case No. 7 of 2017. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Debnarayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder, reported in AIR 2005 Cal 251. It is further urged that the husband was not paying the maintenance and the petitioner had prayed for stay of the suit which was also rejected.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document
1