Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 790 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Smt. Vinita Bansal vs Sh. Amit Bansal on 9 February, 2007

In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradun and Others (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Maintenance should permit reasonable comfort to the wife and ability to prosecute her case, yet should not be excessive or extortionate - Assessment of income of husband - Where diverse claims made by the parties, some conjectures and guess work by court permissible - Attempt by the husband to conceal his true income would justify adverse inference by court about his stated income."
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

25. However, it is pertinent to note that while calculating amount of maintenance to be awarded to the parties, though the Court must consider the state of the parties and the mode of life that the wife was used to as well as the capacity to pay of the husband after allowing for his own expenses and obligations, this maintenance amount should permit reasonable comfort to the wife and ability to prosecute her case, yet it should not be excessive or extortionate. This finding was rendered by the Apex Court early in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt) v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 7, CRL.REV.P. 604/2018 & 605/2018 Page 24 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:31.08.2023 17:28:15 and has been consistently followed since then. The relevant portion of the said Judgement is as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Payal Abdullah vs Omar Abdullah on 31 August, 2023

25. However, it is pertinent to note that while calculating amount of maintenance to be awarded to the parties, though the Court must consider the state of the parties and the mode of life that the wife was used to as well as the capacity to pay of the husband after allowing for his own expenses and obligations, this maintenance amount should permit reasonable comfort to the wife and ability to prosecute her case, yet it should not be excessive or extortionate. This finding was rendered by the Apex Court early in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt) v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 7, CRL.REV.P. 604/2018 & 605/2018 Page 24 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:31.08.2023 17:28:15 and has been consistently followed since then. The relevant portion of the said Judgement is as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Mrs Amar Shingal vs Wg Cdr Pradeep Shingal on 29 January, 2007

25. However, as already pointed out question regarding quantum of maintenance has been subject matter of Jabir Kaur Sehgal ( Supra) which has been consistently followed by our own High Court in Annurita Vohra and S.S. Bindra ( Supra) have already been discussed. These authorities lay down the principles on which quantum of maintenance has to be calculated by the court and facts which are required to be taken into consideration. In my considered opinion the amount of Rs 19 8,000 claimed by the petitioner can not be said to be unreasonable inasmuch as to his own admission, the respondent has been drawing net salary of Rs 33420 plus rental income of Rs 9550 and in all he earns Rs 42970. Even if all the deductions made from his salary are considered to be just and reasonable, still he has income Rs 42970 per month. If it is divided equally amongst the petitioner, respondent and their two children apart from giving an additional share to the respondent still the share of the petitioner exceeds Rs 8,000. in my considered opinion, therefore, quantum of present maintenance @ Rs 8,000 as claimed by the petitioner seems to be reasonable. However, in September, 2003 respondent had been getting salary of Rs 21579 plus rental income of Rs.5,000/-. Present petition was filed in May, 2003. In these circumstances, I am of the view that keeping in view the fact that petitioner has potential to earn her livelihood, ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs 5500 from May 2001 till April 2003 and from May 2003 onwards @ Rs.8,000 per month. Any amount paid by the respondent U/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or as maintenance against any order passed by any court, same shall be adjusted in the amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner. Petitioner has claimed Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses. However, there is no provision in the Hindu Adoptation and Maintenance Act analogous to section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act under which litigation expenses can be awarded to her. However, she can be awarded the cost of the suit. This issue is accordingly decided in 20 favour of petitioner and against the respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ca No. 42/14. Dr. Nihal Singh vs . Dr. (Mrs.) on 21 November, 2014

12. Further the ld. Trial Court also rightly relied upon the case of "Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.)" (supra) that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully disclose their true income and therefore, some guesswork on the part of the court is permissible. Considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing, an element of conjecture and guesswork does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anupam Gupta vs Sumeet Gupta on 30 May, 2011

27. As held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbir Kaur (Smt.) (supra), Courts have also recognized the fact that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully disclose their true income and therefore some guess work on the part of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also observed that "considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision".
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs Meenu Kumar on 1 June, 2012

"It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse CM(M) 1241/2009 Page 12 of 18 lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce proceedings the parties should be able to maintain themselves and should be sufficiently entitled to be represented in judicial proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same. (See Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7).
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next