Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Satish Kumar Aggarwal vs Subha Aggarwal on 19 October, 2022 cites

Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is well qualified and has been earning Rs.40,000/- per month and, therefore, maintenance should not have been granted to her has no force since the petitioner has stated that she is suffering from coronary disease and is not working anywhere at present. The petitioner on the other hand before the learned Trial Court was not able to place on record any document to prove that the respondent is earning at present. It is settled law that it is not the capability to earn, but the actually earning which is the key to decide or reject claim for maintenance. The learned Appellate Court has rightly relied on the case of Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that merely because wife is earning something, would not make a ground to reject her claim for maintenance more particularly when her earnings are not placed on record. The observations of the Apex Court read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 216 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Gaurav Sondhi vs Diya Sondhi on 3 May, 2005

Aggrieved is directed to provide bank account details to respondent, if any, so that the interim maintenance can be deposited in the account of aggrieved directly on or before 7th day of each English Calendar month. Arrears be cleared within six months from today. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi-120 DLT (2005) 426. Any maintenance that has already been ordered to be paid shall be accordingly adjusted.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 278 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1   2 Next