Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)Section 127 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr vs Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr on 19 November, 2014
This court in Asha
CRL. REV. P. 805/2018 Page 5 of 7
Karki(supra) referred to the judgment of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and
Another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Another reported as
(2015) 2 SCC 385, wherein it was held as follows-:
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."
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:
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Asha Karki vs Rajesh Karki on 29 January, 2020
This court in Asha
CRL. REV. P. 805/2018 Page 5 of 7
Karki(supra) referred to the judgment of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and
Another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Another reported as
(2015) 2 SCC 385, wherein it was held as follows-:
1