Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Sapna & Anr vs The State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 26 February, 2020 cites

Annurita Vohra vs Sandeep Vohra on 15 March, 2004

10. However, while granting maintenance, the Family Court erred in computing the maintenance amount. Since no positive evidence was led by respondent No.2 to the effect that petitioner No. 1 had any source of income, the family resource cake which comprised of the income earned by respondent No.2 only, ought to have been divided in terms of decision in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep reported as (2004) 110 DLT 546. I deem it appropriate to quote the following observations from the captioned case:
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 487 - V Sen - Full Document

Shail Kumari Devi & Anr vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B Pathak on 28 July, 2008

In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak this Court dealt with the question as to from which date a Magistrate may order payment of maintenance to wife, children or parents. In Shail Kumari Devi this Court considered a catena of decisions by the various High Courts, before arriving at the conclusion that it was incorrect to hold that, as a normal rule, the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application. The Court held, and we agree, that if the Magistrate intends to pass such an order, he is required to record reasons in support of such order. Thus, such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. 7. In the case before us, the High Court has not given any reason for not granting maintenance from the date of the application. We are of CRL. REV. P. 805/2018 Page 6 of 7 the view that the circumstances eminently justified grant of maintenance with effect from the date of the application in view of the finding that the appellant had worked before marriage and had not done so during her marriage. There was no evidence of her income during the period the parties lived as man and wife. We, therefore reverse the order of the High Court in this regard and direct that the respondent shall pay the amount of maintenance found payable from the date of the application for maintenance. As far as maintenance granted under Section 24 of the H.M. Act by the Courts below is concerned, it shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 165 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1