Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Savitri W/O Shri Govind Singh Rawat vs Shri Govind Singh Rawat on 9 October, 1985
"06. A daughter has a statutory right to be maintained by the father irrespective
of the fact whether, or not, the mother has a right to be maintained. The father
has to discharge his legal duty and moral obligation of maintaining the child.
True it is that the wife also cannot be left in a lurch till such time that the
application is finally heard and determined. Grant of interim maintenance is a
relief against destitution. The Supreme Court in the case of "Savitri v. Govind
Singh", reported in "AIR 1986 SC 984", while evolving this concept, ordained
that even an application supported by an affidavit will be sufficient to seek such a
relief. The aim and object of the grant of interim maintenance is to prevent
vagrancy and to provide the wife and child a breathing spur to live. The
petitioner being an able bodied person receiving a handsome salary cannot
evade his responsibility to maintain his child and the wife. However, to ward off
his liability, the petitioner, in this case, has taken refuge under the plea that his
wife is not entitled to any maintenance because he has already divorced her and
she has acknowledged its receipt. The Deed of divorce, which forms a part of the
petition of the petitioner, is a sequel to the fact that the petitioner has pronounced
a 'Tripple Talaaq' on his wife, i.e. the Respondent No.2 in the petition.
Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017
This
practice has been declared to be void by a majority view of the Hon'ble Judges of
the Apex Court of the country in the case of "Shayara Bano & Ors v. Union of
India & Ors." reported in "2017 (4) JKLT 1 (SC)", wherein it has been held as
under:
Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002
57. Given the fact that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is
obvious that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and
wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the
marital tie, cannot ever take place. Also, as understood by the Privy
Council in Rashid Ahmad (supra), such Triple Talaq is valid even if it
is not for any reasonable cause, which view of the law no longer holds
good after Shamim Ara (supra). This being the case, it is clear that
this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital
tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man
without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of
Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right
contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our
opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and
enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression "laws in
force" in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the
extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq. Since we have
declared Section 2 of the 1937 Act to be void to the extent indicated
561-A No. 203 of 2014 Page 4 of 5
above on the narrower ground of it being manifestly arbitrary, we do
not find the need to go into the ground of discrimination in these
cases, as was argued by the learned Attorney General and those
supporting him.
1