Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 September, 2022
Further, in the case of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 and
Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine (SC) 1314, it is held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children,
the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he
is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any
legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. Therefore, the
argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant that
the applicant is unable to maintain his wife - respondent herein and
unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that franchise of canon
company is now closed down is not acceptable. It is needless to say
considering the statement and status with which the respondent -
wife was living at the time of her desertion and therefore, learned
Sessions Judge has not committed any error considering the peculiar
facts of the case more particularly considering the fact that the
respondent - wife has to incur medical expenses towards her ailment
of cancer, award of Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance is just
and proper and merely because the business of the applicant is closed
down and recession is not a ground to deny the maintenance more
particularly considering the able-bodied principle and considering
potentiality to earn more. It goes without saying that it is the duty of
the husband to maintain his wife and children.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007
In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shailja and Another vs. Khobbanna reported in (2018) 12
SCC 199; Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in
(2014)16 SCC 715 as well as Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein it has been observed and held as under:
Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors on 15 July, 2014
Further, in the case of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 and
Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine (SC) 1314, it is held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children,
the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he
is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any
legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. Therefore, the
argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant that
the applicant is unable to maintain his wife - respondent herein and
unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that franchise of canon
company is now closed down is not acceptable. It is needless to say
considering the statement and status with which the respondent -
wife was living at the time of her desertion and therefore, learned
Sessions Judge has not committed any error considering the peculiar
facts of the case more particularly considering the fact that the
respondent - wife has to incur medical expenses towards her ailment
of cancer, award of Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance is just
and proper and merely because the business of the applicant is closed
down and recession is not a ground to deny the maintenance more
particularly considering the able-bodied principle and considering
potentiality to earn more. It goes without saying that it is the duty of
the husband to maintain his wife and children.
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
Further, in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble
Supreme relying on its decision in the case of Reema Salkan vs.
Sumer Singh Salkan reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 observed that the
Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband,
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:42:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/175/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. 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. Further, while
awarding the maintenance, Court has to consider all relevant factors
and the test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial dispute
depends on the financial status of wife and the standard of living that
the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home and amount of
maintenance should aid the wife to live in a similar life style as she
enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Merely applicant - husband is
having a liability to repay loan is not a ground to reduce the
maintenance amount.
Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan on 25 September, 2018
Further, in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble
Supreme relying on its decision in the case of Reema Salkan vs.
Sumer Singh Salkan reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 observed that the
Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband,
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:42:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/175/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. 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. Further, while
awarding the maintenance, Court has to consider all relevant factors
and the test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial dispute
depends on the financial status of wife and the standard of living that
the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home and amount of
maintenance should aid the wife to live in a similar life style as she
enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Merely applicant - husband is
having a liability to repay loan is not a ground to reduce the
maintenance amount.
Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012
[5.5] Further, it is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction can
be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with
the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we
examine the reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge, it appears
that learned Family Judge has already appreciated the facts and
finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding
of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander &
Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the
reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge. The learned Family
Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while awarding the
maintenance to the respondent - wife and such findings are based on
evidence led before it and hence also, no interference at the hands of
this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.