Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)
Himanshu Verma vs Chandni Verma on 1 July, 2025 cites

Himanshu Pal @ Pankaj vs State Of Chhattisgahr 34 ... on 11 December, 2018

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated 10.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Family Court'), whereby the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 163/2025 Page 1 of 10 Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:26:41 referred to as 'HMA') filed by the respondent/wife for grant of interim maintenance in HMA No. 1575/2023, titled Himanshu Verma v. Chandni Verma, was allowed, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the pendency of the case, to the respondent/wife.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Shailja vs Khobbanna on 18 January, 2017

6. Before the learned Family Court, the respondent/wife pleaded that she is not earning and does not have sufficient income to maintain herself. The said facts are not refuted by the appellant before the learned Family Court or even before this Court. Admittedly, the respondent/wife is not earning anything. It is well-settled that the capability to earn and actual earnings are distinct considerations, and in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing the respondent/wife's present employment or income, no adverse inference can be drawn against her merely on the grounds of her alleged capability of gaining employment. Reference can be drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court in Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, wherein it was held that the factum of the wife being capable of earning a living and whether she is actually earning are two different aspects. Merely because the wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 163/2025 Page 3 of 10 Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:26:41 by the learned Family Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

Binita Dass vs Uttam Kumar on 9 August, 2019

7. Similarly, this Court in Binita Dass v. Uttam Kumar 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9666, held that the qualification of the wife and her capacity to earn cannot be the sole ground to deny her interim maintenance if she is without any source of income. In the said case, the petitioner/wife, inter alia, had approached this Court challenging the order of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, whereby her application for grant of interim maintenance had been dismissed. With regard to the observations made by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, this Court observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

10. It is settled law that when a party attempts to conceal his income and fails to produce the relevant documents to ascertain the actual earnings, the income can be assessed based on guesswork of the status of the parties, their lifestyle, and social background. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs District Judge, Dehradun & Others, (1997) 7 SCC 7 wherein it is held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 471 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next