Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs Arundhati Tripathy on 23 August, 2005
In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy) reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it was held that the long separation of the couple is a ground for dissolution of their marriage. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. In this case also, the appellant and the respondent are residing separately for about 10 years and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing them to get united in the matrimonial home especially when the matrimonial relationship between them has broken down irretrievably.
Section 13 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Amarjit Kaur vs Harbhajan Singh And Anr. on 23 October, 2002
In this context, useful reference can be made to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh reported in [2003 (10) SCC 228] wherein it was held that once it is found that the spouse who seeks maintenance did not have any independent income for her support, the Court has to grant maintenance pendente lite. In such circumstances, we hold that the appellant is in a position to maintain the respondent. The obligation of the appellant to maintain the respondent is not only moral but also legal. On the other hand, the respondent is not in a position to maintain herself as she has no independent source of income of her own to maintain herself besides she has to take continued treatment for her ailment as referred to above. Further, under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the relevant consideration for granting maintenance, pendente lite is that the spouse should not have sufficient income for her/his support and once the Court reaches its conclusion in this regard, it has to grant maintenance and the only discretion left with the Court is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. In the present case, we find from the records that the appellant is in a position to pay maintenance to the respondent and in our opinion, the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court is also reasonable befitting the financial status of the appellant. Hence, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in granting interim maintenance to the respondent and it calls for no interference by this Court.
1