Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.15 seconds)The Family Courts Act, 1984
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 128 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rama Paswan & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2007
"In the case of Rama Paswan v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2779, the Apex Court has held that it is cordial rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court. The principles of Evidence Act are based on this rule. However, the Court is not empowered under the provisions of Code to compel either side to examine any particular witness. But in weighing the evidence, the Court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw adverse inference. The Court will have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from the facts elicited in the evidence."
Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997
16. Regarding the guiding principles for the Family Courts to arrive at the quantum of maintenance to be awarded in the maintenance proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1997 (7) SCC page 7 [Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. The District Judge, Dehradun], has held that the trial Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and the maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she lived with her husband and the wife should not feel handicapped in prosecution of the case against her husband for maintenance.
R. Parthasarathy vs Anglo French Textiles A Unit Of ... on 8 August, 1995
18. With regard to appreciation of the evidence of the Power of Attorney appointed by a spouse in a maintenance proceedings before the Family Court, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.R.Pauvya Vs. C.Kanagavel (C.M.A.No.2237 of 2007) reported in 2014(5) CTC 177 in paragraph No.20, has held as follows:-
Seenora Benzamin Chokar vs Benzamin Manase Cholkar & on 1 August, 2013
In the decision reported in 2014(1) HLR 709 [Seenora Benzamin Chokar Vs. Benzamin Manase Cholkar], in paragraph No.5, the Gujarat High Court has held as follows:-