Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Sri Jasholal Agrawala Alias Jain vs Smt. Puspabati Agrawala on 30 August, 1993 cites

Bai Tahira A vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia And Anr on 6 October, 1978

7. There is no dispute regarding the position that the right of a wife for maintenance is an incidence of the status or estate of matrimony, that according to the text of Hindu Law to which the parties belong, the obligation to maintain the wife arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties and that apart from the liability which the husband incurs under personal law of maintaining his wife, the provisions of Sac. 125, CrPC independently vest the statutory right in a wife to claim maintenance from her husband (See 62(1986) CLT 92 (Saraswati Meher v. Jadumani Meher) and that a divorced wife, otherwise eligible, is entitled to the benefit of maintenance allowance and the dissolution of the marriage makes no difference to this right Under Section 125(1), CrPC (See AIR 1979 SC 362 (Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissali Chothia and Anr.). It is also not disputed that no wife shall to be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband Under Section 125,CrPC, if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason which principle is incorporated in Sub-section (4) of Section 125. The specific question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the wife's claim for maintenance is to be rejected summarily since similar plea made by her in the Civil Court has been rejected and since her husband's plea that she deserted him has been accepted by the Civil Court. In this connection, it has to be taken as an accepted principle that the finding of the Civil Court in a matrimonial proceeding is binding on the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court is not entitled to question the correctness or validity of the Civil Courts' decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 122 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Saraswati Meher vs Jadumani Meher on 16 May, 1986

7. There is no dispute regarding the position that the right of a wife for maintenance is an incidence of the status or estate of matrimony, that according to the text of Hindu Law to which the parties belong, the obligation to maintain the wife arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties and that apart from the liability which the husband incurs under personal law of maintaining his wife, the provisions of Sac. 125, CrPC independently vest the statutory right in a wife to claim maintenance from her husband (See 62(1986) CLT 92 (Saraswati Meher v. Jadumani Meher) and that a divorced wife, otherwise eligible, is entitled to the benefit of maintenance allowance and the dissolution of the marriage makes no difference to this right Under Section 125(1), CrPC (See AIR 1979 SC 362 (Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissali Chothia and Anr.). It is also not disputed that no wife shall to be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband Under Section 125,CrPC, if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason which principle is incorporated in Sub-section (4) of Section 125. The specific question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the wife's claim for maintenance is to be rejected summarily since similar plea made by her in the Civil Court has been rejected and since her husband's plea that she deserted him has been accepted by the Civil Court. In this connection, it has to be taken as an accepted principle that the finding of the Civil Court in a matrimonial proceeding is binding on the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court is not entitled to question the correctness or validity of the Civil Courts' decision.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1