Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Rajeev Preenja vs Sarika & Others on 26 February, 2009
8. Further in the case of in Rajeev Preenja (Supra), it was held that,
"19. Keeping in view the fact that interim maintenance
applications are likely to take a year for being disposed of and
that the payment to the wife is likely to be made only thereafter,
it is only just and fair that the revisional court should insist on
the deposit in Court of the interim maintenance payable in terms
Crl. M.C. 3240/2009 & Cont. Case No. 106/2012 Page 5 of 7
of the order under challenge as a pre condition to entertaining
the revision petition. Otherwise a recalcitrant husband can,
despite suffering an adverse order, defeat that order merely by
filing a revision petition and not being burdened with the
responsibility of complying with it."
Gaurav Sondhi vs Diya Sondhi on 3 May, 2005
7. This Court has in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika & Ors 159 (2009)
DLT 616 reiterated the guidelines as laid down in the decision
of Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426 in the
context of an application for interim maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC. The relevant guidelines read as under:
1