Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
38. As laid down in Rajnesh V. Neha and Ors. (supra) the test for
determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends
on the financial status of the respondent, i.e.,( the husband) and
the standard of living that the applicant (the wife) was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home and that though the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:10.12.2021
17:37:50
This file is
digitally signed by
Crl.Rev.P. Nos.830/2019 & 869/2019 Page 31 of 33
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Sanjay Damodar Kale vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale on 6 August, 2020
36. Furthermore, as laid down in Sanjay Damodar Kaley v.
Kalyani Sanjay Kaley; 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 as regards
the contention raised on behalf of 'V' that 'R' has a potential to
earn and does not seek to so earn, as observed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay in Sanjay Damodar Kale V. Kalyani
Sanjay Kale, placing reliance on the verdict of Sunita
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:10.12.2021
17:37:50
This file is
digitally signed by
Crl.Rev.P. Nos.830/2019 & 869/2019 Page 30 of 33
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar
Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar
Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694]
while relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014)
16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn,
nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is
sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4.
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007
court has to determine whether the income of the wife is
sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance
with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
[Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not
mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
Section 17 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs Shila Rani Chander Prakash on 16 April, 1968
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC
705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785]
cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander
Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR
1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation
of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher
pedestal than the wife.