Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 328 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Surjit Kaur vs Tirath Singh on 19 August, 1977
10. The real crux and thrust of the matter is whether the discretion to recall under changed circumstance would include a conviction. To elaborate: whether the Court can take note of any circumstances which is extraneous to the provision, it is a cardinal principle of law that if the provision is clear and unambiguous, it is to be interpreted as it. is without adding any word to it. Be it noted here that in certain cases, namely, Surjit Kaur v. Tirath Singh 1977 (79) Pun LR 621 : AIR 1978 Punj. & Har. 112) and in certain other cases it has been observed that, though the words "conduct of the parties" do not appear in the present Section, yet the conduct of the parties would not be ignored by the Court in making the order asked for or for assessing the amount of alimony. The matter is one for the Court to deal with as it thinks just, and reasonable in its unfettered discretion. It has been held that certain relevant circumstances including adultery and the wife who has brought cohabitation to an end for which the husband cannot be blamed, and the conduct of the erring spouse that has caused exceptional hardship to the other or, where the erring spouse is shown to have been guilty of exceptionally depraved, the Court may refuse to grant alimony pendente lite. Whether the discretion of the Court can be stretched to that extent at the stage of entertaining an application under Section 24 is to be seen.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Amarjit Kaur vs Harbhajan Singh And Anr. on 23 October, 2002
From the aforesaid pronouncement, it is evincible that their Lordships while scanning the basic requirement of Section 24 of the Act have laid down that the relevant statutory consideration being only that either of the parties who was the petitioner in the application under Section 24 of the Act has no independent income sufficient for her or his support for the grant of interim maintenance, the same has to be granted and the discretion therefor left with the Court is only with reference to the reasonableness of the amount that would be awarded and not to impose any condition which has self-defeating consequence. It is worth noting here that in Paragraph 9 of the said judgment their Lordships dealt with the condition imposed, i.e. conducting a DNA test and expressed no opinion on the legality and propriety of the Court undertaking consideration at the appropriate stage. Their Lordships only confined to the limited aspect to the stage of awarding interim maintenance. It may look that imposition of a condition while granting maintenance allowance can affect the provision thereof distinguishing features but a pregnant one, which their Lordships have categorically and unequivocally expressed the opinion with regard to the requirement of statutory conditions. Their Lordships have used the words "the relevant statutory conditions being only..." and in view of the aforesaid I am disposed to think that no other condition can be read into the provision to be added as a futuristic conditional one or a conviction. Their Lordships have restricted the discretion to quantum, not to entitlement if the conditions precedent are proved. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conduct is a relevant fact and has to be taken into consideration is de hors the provision, as Section 25 has been couched in a different language than Section 24. Section 25 uses the phraseology "... conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case". Such wordings are absent in the provision and in the absence of the same, it would be encroaching in the field of legislation to add the said concepts to it on the basis that the Court has a discretion, more so, when the Apex Court has expressed the view with regard to the limited discretion the Court has. In view of the constricted and restricted discretion on, the broader expanse that has been built up and the edifice that is sought to be pyramided by the learned counsel for the respondent have no legs to stand upon and bound to collapse.