Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
14.3 Earlier, a two-judge bench of this Court speaking
through Indu Malhotra, J. in Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021 2 SCC
324 ("Rajnesh"), elaborated upon the broad criteria and
the factors to be considered for determining the quantum
of maintenance. This court emphasizes that there is no
fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead,
it should be based on a balanced consideration of various
factors. These factors include and are illustrative but are
not limited or exhaustive, they are adumbrated as under:
Pramodkumar C Shah vs Rajulaben Pramodkumar on 22 April, 2013
(5) Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma, AIR 2009 SC 2254;
(6) Pramodkumar C. Shah Vs. Rajulaben Pramodkumar Shah,
2013 (2) GLH 360;
Mr. Rani Narasimha Sastry vs Rani Suneela Rani on 19 November, 2019
"13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the
respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC
making serious allegations in which the appellant had to
undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In
the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC not only acquittal
has been recorded but observations have been made that
allegations of serious nature are levelled against each
other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With
regard to proceeding initiated by the respondent under
Section 498-A IPC, the High Court made the following
observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry case, SCC
OnLine Hyd)
"15. ... Merely because the respondent has sought for
maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, they
cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a
recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty."
Joydeep Majumdar vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar on 26 February, 2021
In the case of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal
Majumdar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held and observed in para - 10 as under:-
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007
In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4
SCC 511 this Court gave illustrative cases where inference
of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing
Page 11 of 20
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:21:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2296/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025
undefined
that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case
will have to be decided on its own facts."