Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Amit Kumar Kachhap @ Amit Kumar Kachchap vs Sangita Toppo on 24 February, 2023
In the case of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo, (supra), the High Court of Jharkhand has held as under:-
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Jagir Kaur & Another vs Jaswant Singh on 13 February, 1963
8. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [see Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521].
Lnanak Chand vs Shri Chandra Kishore Agarwala And ... on 20 May, 1969
In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802], the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs Mrs. Veena Kaushal And Ors. on 22 August, 1978
In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
K.Vimal vs K.Veeraswamy on 20 March, 1991
Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It was held the provision provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997
In this connection a reference may be made to case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 and Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations. The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, have also to be taken in to consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living.