Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)

Parvin Kumar Jain vs Anju Jain on 8 February, 2021

3. On the contrary, Mr. Achyutananda Routray, learned counsel appearing for the OP-wife by taking this Court through the relevant portion of the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner- husband is not only a qualified person, but also an Electrical Engineer by profession with 32 years of experience in a reputed organization and he thereby may be directed to pay the pendentelite maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month because the wife and daughter of the petitioner are also entitled to live commensurate to the standard of living of the petitioner. Further, Mr. WP(C) No.4283 of 2024 Page 3 of 14 Routray by referring to the decision in Parvin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain; (2024) SCC Online SC 3678 has submitted that not only the wife, but also the minor children are entitled to the pendentelite maintenance U/S.24 of the Act and even though the children have not been explicitly referred to therein in Section 24 of the Act, but the minor children being dependents to their parents for maintenance and Section 26 of the Act provides for the maintenance of children, it would not be advisable to read application U/S. 24 of the Act in isolation to these factors while granting pendentlite maintenance to the spouse and children. Mr. Routray accordingly has prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1