Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.57 seconds)Vimal Sharma & Anr. vs The Standing Counsel (Crl.)& Anr. on 23 July, 2015
[18] The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been
illustrated by the Apex Court in K.Vimal vs.
Crl. Rev. P. 72 of 2019
Page 13 of 15
K.Veeraswammy, (1991) 2 SCC 375 in the following
words:
Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr on 18 October, 2013
[19] Further, in Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse
& Anr. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 the Apex Court has
succinctly held that adversarial approach should be
avoided in the cases involving social justice legislations for
special protection and benefit of vulnerable groups in the
society. In Paragraph 14 & 15 of the judgment,
observation of the Apex Court in this regard is as under:
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
[20] The Apex Court in the recent decision dated
04.11.2020 in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0833/2020 held that since it is the sacrosanct
duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife
and minor children the plea of the husband that he does
not possess any source of income ipso facto does not
absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is
able bodied and has educational qualifications.
[21] Here in this case the Family Court after
appreciation of evidence found that the wife petitioner had
sufficient cause for not living with her husband. It was also
proved before the Family Court that the wife was unable to
maintain herself whereas the husband had a monthly
income to provide maintenance to her. Accordingly, the
learned Family Court allowed the petition of the wife and
Crl. Rev. P. 72 of 2019
Page 15 of 15
directed the husband to pay maintenance allowance to his
wife Rs.3,000/-(rupees three thousand)only.
[22] In view of what is stated above, there is no
reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Udaipur.
1