Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)The Family Courts Act, 1984
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 March, 2005
The aforesaid position
was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State
of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503).
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007
In the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, reported in 2008
Criminal Law Journal 727, the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs Mrs. Veena Kaushal And Ors. on 22 August, 1978
"5. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent
vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support
to those who are unable to support themselves and who
have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to
maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that
means available to the deserted wife while she was living
with her husband and would not take within itself the
efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive
somehow. Section 125 Cr. P.C. is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect women and
children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR
1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article
15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short the Constitution). It is meant to achieve a
social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of
food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives
effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man
to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are
unable to maintain themselves.
K. Sivaram vs K. Mangalamba And Ors. on 24 March, 1989
After referring to the decision in
Krishna Jain (supra), the Court adverted to the decision of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Sivaram v. K.
Mangalamba11 wherein it has been ruled that the
maintenance would be awarded from the date of the
order and such maintenance could be granted from the
date of the application only by recording special reasons.
The view of the learned single Judge of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh stating that it is a normal rule that the
Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date
of the order and not from the date of the application for
maintenance was not accepted by this Court. Eventually,
the Court ruled thus: -
Minakshi Gaur vs Chitranjan Gaur & Anr on 14 July, 2008
In the case of Minakshi Gaur v. Chitranjan Gaur, reported
in AIR 2009 SC 1377, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan on 6 April, 2015
Thus, the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to
above lay down the proposition of law that even if the wife is
earning or has the capacity of earning, that by itself will not
absolve the husband from his liability to pay the requisite
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.