Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)

Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020

"17. This brings us to the next question, i.e., from which date will the maintenance be payable - the date of the application or the date of the Order? The appellant has contested the direction of the Family Court wherein it has made the maintenance payable from the date of the order instead of the date of application. Of course, Section 125(2) of the Code empowers the Court to award maintenance from the date of the order but the same has to be justified in the background of the attendant facts and circumstances and should not cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant. In our view, Section 125 of the Code is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to protect the wife and children from destitution and vagrancy and, in the usual course, it would not be appropriate to disadvantage the applicant for the delay in the disposal of the application by the judicial system. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant discussion in Rajnesh v Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which is extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 139 - Cited by 1507 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Shail Kumari Devi & Anr vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B Pathak on 28 July, 2008

In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839], this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 165 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Parvez Shahjahan vs State Of Up on 3 March, 2023

15. It is though correct that the decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) was rendered after the passing of the Family Court‟s order in the present case, however, as subsequently clarified in Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) are declaratory of the legal position and intended to bring uniformity and consistency in maintenance jurisprudence. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application, since the pendency of proceedings is not within the control of the claimant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors on 15 July, 2014

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 393 - D Misra - Full Document

Parvez Shahjahan And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2023

In Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2025 INSC 528, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court considered the issue regarding the date from which maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. ought to be made payable. The relevant observations are extracted herein CRL.REV.P. 520/2024 Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:27.02.2026 19:53:14 below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr on 18 October, 2013

In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51], the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held: (SCC p. 196, para 13) "13.3. ... purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 202 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1