Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.66 seconds)Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
8. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court fell into error in
not giving any credence or weightage to the fact that the wife had
worked earlier and is still capable of working and maintaining herself.
She relied upon the judgment reported as Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh
Jaiswal 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 to say that in determining whether an
order fixing maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is to be made,
the Court should take into consideration whether the spouse had the
capacity of earning and as in the present instance, chose not to do so.
In a similar vein, learned counsel relied upon the rulings reported as
Damanreet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja (Crl. Rev. P.344/2011) decided
on 14.05.2012.
Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012
8. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court fell into error in
not giving any credence or weightage to the fact that the wife had
worked earlier and is still capable of working and maintaining herself.
She relied upon the judgment reported as Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh
Jaiswal 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 to say that in determining whether an
order fixing maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is to be made,
the Court should take into consideration whether the spouse had the
capacity of earning and as in the present instance, chose not to do so.
In a similar vein, learned counsel relied upon the rulings reported as
Damanreet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja (Crl. Rev. P.344/2011) decided
on 14.05.2012.
Sh. Bharat Hegde vs Smt. Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007
In the
impugned order, the Trial Court took into consideration a decision of
Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde 140
FAO-68/2013 & MAT.APP.(FC)22/2013 Page 4
(2007) DLT 16 which in turn outlined the various elements that the
Courts ordinarily go into while deciding applications under Section
Husaini Begam vs Khwaja Muhammad Khan And Anr. on 27 November, 1906
12. It appears that respondent has sound financial status. It
has also come on record that during survey of Crystal
Foundary, penalty of 16 Lacs was imposed upon the
respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
as Nawab Husaini Begam Vs. Nawab Khwaja Muhammad
Khan held that wife is entitled to "Kharcha-i-Pandan" and
"Hath Kharch" (pin money). Though, she has nothing to spend
on household goods still money is required to fulfil the other
day-to-day needs including clothing, personal effects and
entertainment too.
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1