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

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

on

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

India News

IPL 2026 Qualifier 1: Rajat Patidar, Virat Kohli shatter playoff records as RCB crush GT to reach final

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru advanced to their second consecutive IPL final after a historic 92-run demolition of Gujarat Titans in Qualifier 1, powered by Rajat Patidar’s breathtaking 93*

Published

on

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) created history in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 Qualifier 1 against Gujarat Titans (GT), sealing their spot in a second consecutive final with a clinical 92-run victory on Tuesday.

Riding on captain Rajat Patidar’s blistering, unbeaten 93 off just 33 balls, Bengaluru piled up a colossal 254 for 5 in their 20 overs after being asked to bat first at the scenic Dharamsala stadium. The monumental total surpassed the previous playoff benchmark of 233 for 3, set by GT against Mumbai Indians in 2023, making it the highest-ever score in IPL playoff history. In response, a ruthless RCB bowling assault dismantled the Gujarat Titans batting line-up, bowling them out for 162 in 19.3 overs.

Patidar blitzkrieg anchors historic RCB innings

After GT skipper Shubman Gill won the toss and opted to field, RCB’s top order asserted early dominance by racing to 76 for 1 within the powerplay. Venkatesh Iyer provided a quickfire 19 off seven balls, while Devdutt Padikkal struck 30 off 19 deliveries to set a brisk tempo.

The foundation allowed Virat Kohli to maintain the middle-order momentum with a fluent 43 off 25 balls. With this knock, Kohli carved out another historic milestone, becoming the first player in IPL history to accumulate over 600 runs in four consecutive seasons. Jason Holder briefly checked RCB’s charge by removing both Kohli and Padikkal in the 10th over to leave them at 99 for 3.

However, skipper Rajat Patidar took complete control from there on. Surviving two dropped catches early on, Patidar launched a brutal counter-attack, smashing five fours and nine towering sixes at an astonishing strike rate of 281.81. He combined forces with Krunal Pandya, who played a crucial anchoring role with 43 off 28 balls, putting together a blistering 90-run partnership. Patidar turned particularly merciless in the death overs, hammering a massive over from Kulwant Khejroliya as RCB finished their death overs on an absolute high.

Gujarat Titans collapse under scoreboard pressure

Faced with a steep mountain to climb, the Gujarat Titans chase imploded right from the start, losing five wickets inside the powerplay against a lethal pace battery. Openers Sai Sudharsan and skipper Shubman Gill were dismissed in the third and fourth overs respectively.

Sudharsan, the tournament’s leading run-scorer, suffered a bizarre and unfortunate dismissal when his bat slipped during a cut shot, knocking back his own stumps to be out hit-wicket off Jacob Duffy. Gill followed shortly after, cleaned up by an excellent delivery from Bhuvneshwar Kumar.

Jos Buttler offered a brief, aggressive resistance by hitting four boundaries and two sixes in a quick 29, but Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood exacted quick revenge by clean-bowling him in the fifth over. From a precarious position, the Titans slipped further as Jacob Duffy tore through the middle order, dismissing Washington Sundar and Rashid Khan.

Rahul Tewatia was the lone warrior for the Titans, waging a solitary battle to smash a fighting 68. His aggressive hitting brought up the team’s hundred in the 13th over and dragged the side past the 150-mark. However, the target proved far too distant. Krunal Pandya claimed the final wicket in the final over, dismissing GT’s tailender Mohammed Siraj—who was caught by Tim David—to bundle out GT for 162, securing the second-largest victory margin in IPL playoff history for RCB.

While RCB marches straight into the grand finale with ultimate momentum, Gujarat Titans remain alive in the tournament. They will get another opportunity to reach the final when they play the winner of the Eliminator clash between Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals in Qualifier 2.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com