Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)Section 22 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
9. To answer this question, both Learned Courts below have
concurrent findings after relying a judgement reported in Smt.
Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal and held, she is not entitled to
get compensation under Section 20(1) (d) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in
Paragraphs 77 to 83 for criteria for determining quantum of
maintenance in the referred judgment by the petitioner in Rajnesh V.
Neha as under:
Section 24 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Rajathi vs C. Ganesan on 22 July, 1999
13. Of course, the dictum in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (AIR
1999 SC 2374) will also have to be understood
reasonably and fairly. If a qualified woman is actually
able to engage herself in some stable and settled
employment after the spouses started separate
residence, it may not be fair or correct to say that such
subsequent stable employment and income must be
ignored solely for the reason that she had taken up such
employment only after the spouses separated and while
in matrimony she was not engaging herself in any
income earning activities. It is not necessary to advert in
detail to such possibilities in view of the facts of this
case, where it is very clear that either before the
24
spouses separated or immediately prior to the date of
filing of the petition or thereafter the claimant wife was
not actually engaging herself in any income earning
activities. The evidence clearly shows that it was not an
adamant refusal on the part of the claimant/wife to
engage herself in any income earning activity to
maintain herself. It was clearly a case of her inability to
secure any such income earning activities and income to
be able to maintain herself. The conclusion in these
circumstances appears to me to be inevitable that the
impugned order does not warrant any interference by
invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of
superintendence and correction.