English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Wife is entitled to maintenance even if she earns: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she earns while disposing of the application challenging the quantum of maintenance granted by a family court.

Published

on

Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she earns while disposing of the application challenging the quantum of maintenance granted by a family court.
The High Court passed this order on the revision application filed by husband against the judgment of the Family Court wherein the judge had granted payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application and amount of Rs 7,000/- as cost of litigation under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“the Code”).
A single-judge bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar, however, noted that the Family Court didn’t consider that the wife had a source of income from Beauty Parlour business.

 

“In the totality of the circumstances and upon consideration of the relevant factors including the income of the Respondent, the number of dependents upon the Respondent, the reasonable wants of the Applicant, in my considered view a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month would be a reasonable financial support to augment the income of the Applicant,” said Justice N.J. Jamadar.
Applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on November 12, 1997. The wife claimed, since the inception of marital life, she was treated with cruelty by her husband.

In April 2007, the respondent expressed desire to obtain divorce from the applicant. The wife claimed that in order to avoid harassment at the hands of her husband, she signed the mutual divorce petition documents on the assurance of her husband that he would continue to maintain the marital relationship with her despite a paper decree of divorce.

Accordingly, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained on 25th October, 2007. Despite, the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant’s house. But from September 2012, the respondent stopped visiting the applicant’s house. The wife claimed that since she had no income to support her, she filed an application for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month, under section 125 of the Code.

Meanwhile, the respondent (husband), who was remarried in 2011, told the family court that applicant wife had started beauty parlour business and was financially independent, and hence she decided to forego maintenance she is entitled to under Section 125 as part of the mutual agreement before the decree of divorce was passed. He also opposed the maintenance application citing losses in business.

The learned family Judge was of the view that the fact that the Applicant had given up her claim for maintenance when the decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed, does not detract materially from her claim as such an agreement not to claim maintenance or waive the right of maintenance was opposed to public policy.
The Applicant being a wife, despite being a divorcee, within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 125(1) of the Code, the agreement to reside separately from the Respondent does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance, held the learned Family Judge and fixed payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application.
Being aggrieved, the aforesaid reasons and findings the Respondent-husband invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The counsel for the Respondent-husband urged that the learned Judge, Family Court committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the Respondent had refused or neglected to maintain the Applicant and that the Applicant was unable to maintain herself.
Amplifying the submission, the learned counsel said that the Applicant having voluntarily relinquished her right of maintenance when the decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed on 25th October 2007, was not legally entitled to turn around and seek maintenance from the Respondent.
“The fact that the Applicant resides separately from the Respondent in pursuance of the decree of divorce, even if taken at par, thus does not disentitle the Applicant, being a divorced wife, from claiming maintenance, urged the learned counsel for the Applicant. The agreement not to claim maintenance which is in teeth of the statutory provision, the object of which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, does not operate as a bar to claim maintenance. Such an agreement, being opposed to the public policy, does not override the statutory ameliorative provisions,” urged the counsel for the Applicant.

India News

PM Modi accuses Congress of anti-Sikh bias over Rahul Gandhi’s ‘traitor’ remark

Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Rahul Gandhi of targeting BJP MP Ravneet Singh Bittu with a ‘gaddar’ remark because of his Sikh identity while speaking in the Rajya Sabha.

Published

on

PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday launched a sharp attack on Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, alleging that his “traitor” remark against BJP MP Ravneet Singh Bittu reflected the Congress party’s animosity towards the Sikh community.

The Prime Minister made the remarks in the Rajya Sabha while replying to the motion of thanks on the President’s address. Referring to an incident in the Parliament complex a day earlier, Modi said Gandhi’s comment had crossed all limits of political decency.

The controversy stems from a protest by suspended Opposition MPs, during which Ravneet Singh Bittu — a former Congress leader who joined the BJP ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections — allegedly made a remark suggesting the protesters were behaving as if they had won a war.

In response, Rahul Gandhi was heard saying, “A traitor is walking by, look at his face,” before approaching Bittu and extending his hand. Gandhi then reportedly added, “Hello, brother. My traitor friend. Don’t worry, you will come back.”

Bittu refused to shake hands with the Congress leader and instead described him as an “enemy of the country” before walking away from the scene.

While the Congress later clarified that Gandhi’s remark was aimed at Bittu for leaving the party, the BJP seized upon the comment, calling it an insult to the Sikh community. Protests were subsequently held by members of the Sikh community outside the Congress headquarters and at other locations.

Addressing the House, Prime Minister Modi said that many leaders had quit the Congress in the past and that the party itself had split multiple times, but none of those leaders had been labelled a traitor. “He called this MP a traitor because he is Sikh,” the Prime Minister alleged, as treasury bench members raised slogans condemning the remark.

Continue Reading

India News

Manipur Assembly to meet at 4 pm today, floor test likely under new chief minister

The Manipur Legislative Assembly will convene at 4 pm today, with a floor test likely as the new chief minister seeks to prove his majority in the House.

Published

on

Manipur assembly

The Manipur Legislative Assembly will convene at 4 pm on Thursday in Imphal, a day after Yumnam Khemchand Singh was sworn in as the chief minister. A floor test is likely to be held on the first day of the session to establish the majority of the newly formed government.

In the 60-member Assembly, the BJP holds 37 seats, while its ally National People’s Party has six members, giving the ruling combine a clear majority in the House.

Singh chaired the first Cabinet meeting of his government late Wednesday evening, shortly after taking oath as the 13th chief minister of Manipur. The meeting marked the formal start of administrative functioning under the new Council of Ministers.

His appointment came nearly a year after the resignation of former chief minister N Biren Singh, who stepped down following months of ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities in the state.

After taking oath, Singh thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and said he would work with “utmost diligence to advance development and prosperity in Manipur,” aligning the state’s efforts with the vision of Viksit Bharat.

He said the government’s focus would be on inclusive economic growth while preserving Manipur’s cultural heritage, adding that he would discharge his responsibilities with sincerity and dedication, mindful of the trust placed in him.

The summoning of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly by Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, along with the first Cabinet meeting, signals the resumption of legislative and administrative processes in the state, officially bringing President’s rule to an end.

The sixth session of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly was last held from July 31 to August 12, 2024.

Continue Reading

India News

PM Modi skips Lok Sabha reply as protests force repeated adjournments

PM Modi did not deliver his Lok Sabha reply today after sustained Opposition protests led to repeated adjournments over a dispute involving Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech.

Published

on

PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not deliver his scheduled reply to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address in the Lok Sabha today after sustained Opposition protests led to multiple adjournments of the House.

The disruption followed an escalation of tensions linked to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech and the suspension of eight Opposition MPs a day earlier. The situation worsened after remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey during the proceedings.

Dispute over references to books sparks fresh ruckus

The controversy intensified when Nishikant Dubey responded to Rahul Gandhi’s demand to speak on national security and references to the unpublished memoirs of former Army chief General MM Naravane. Dubey said that while Gandhi wanted to quote from an unpublished book, he himself had brought several books that, according to him, made claims about the Gandhi family.

As Dubey began listing these books and their contents, strong protests erupted from Opposition members. Krishna Prasad Tenneti, who was presiding over the House at the time, cited Rule 349, which restricts members from reading out books, newspapers, or letters unless directly related to parliamentary business. Despite repeated warnings, the matter remained unresolved, leading to another adjournment.

Rahul Gandhi accuses government of silencing debate

Earlier in the day, Rahul Gandhi alleged that he was being prevented from speaking on an issue of national importance. He claimed the government was uncomfortable with references to General Naravane’s memoirs, which he said discussed the handling of the 2020 China border crisis.

In a social media post, Gandhi said he intended to present the Prime Minister with a book authored by the former Army chief, adding that some cabinet ministers had even questioned the existence of the book. He also wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after the suspension of eight Opposition MPs, alleging that parliamentary debate was being curtailed.

After it became clear that the Prime Minister would not speak in the House today, Gandhi posted that PM Modi had avoided Parliament because he was “scared” to face the truth. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra echoed the allegation, claiming the Prime Minister was unwilling to enter the House.

Proceedings disrupted throughout the day

Lok Sabha proceedings were first adjourned until 2 pm amid loud protests over the issue linked to Naravane’s memoirs. Even after the House reconvened, disruptions continued, preventing normal business from resuming.

Later, Congress MPs staged a demonstration outside the Parliament complex, demanding that Rahul Gandhi be allowed to speak on the President’s address.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com