Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan on 25 September, 2018
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496
WP No. 100425 of 2025
2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and
unsubstantiated plea has been taken by him that he
is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is
highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his
monthly income while working in Canada in the
year 2010 was over Rs 1,77,364; and that this Court
in Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [Reema
Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 312]
has prima facie found that the cause of justice
would be subserved if the appellant is granted an
interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month
commencing from 1-11-2014. At this distance of
time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate
and high cost of living index today, to do complete
justice between the parties, we are inclined to
direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs
20,000 per month to the appellant towards the
maintenance amount with effect from January 2010
and at the rate of Rs 25,000 per month with effect
from 1-6 2018 until further orders. We order
accordingly.
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007
In Chaturbhuj v.
Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of
maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person
for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and
destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her
food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As
settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
measure of social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children. It also falls within the
Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by
Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs Shila Rani Chander Prakash on 16 April, 1968
In this
context, the observation made in Chander
Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila
Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174]
by this Court is relevant and reproduced as under
Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 September, 2022
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496
WP No. 100425 of 2025
the Cr.P.C., is elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of
ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG3 The
Apex Court has held as follows:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan on 6 April, 2015
9. Now, what is to be noticed is whether the wife would be
entitled to any enhancement of maintenance. The Apex Court
in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN1 has
held as follows:
Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997
15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this
Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun
[(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para 8)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496
WP No. 100425 of 2025
"8. ... The court has to consider the status of the parties,
their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to
pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his
own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the
law and statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the
wife should be such as she can live in reasonable
comfort considering her status and the mode of life she
was used to when she lived with her husband and also
that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of
her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot
be excessive or extortionate."