Useful Citations of Maintenance

Few useful Citations of Maintenance


In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.

In Aleamma Mathew Vs C.M. Mathew, 2004, Case No. 80/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that bare reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that a person who is able to maintain onself is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitione no. 1 is employed in the private establishment and is earning about Rs. 9000/- per month. Since petitioner no. 1 is able to maintain herself, she is not entitled to the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.

In Kavita Vs. Gurdit Singh,2005, Case No. 76/03,Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioners have to furnish evidence to show that the respondent is actually running several business. Thus the petitioners have not able to prove an essential requirement of the provision.

In Geeta Vs Rakesh, 2005, Case No. 703/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has been unable to show that she is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient cause or that the respondent has refused to maintain her.

In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.

In Neeta Vs Vijay Kumar, 2005, Case No. 259/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that based on submissions of the petitioners the petitioners have failed to prove their averments, having not led any evidence in support of their case.

In Kiran Vs Amar Singh, 2005, Case No. 52/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon'ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to reside with her husband. She has also not been able to assign any cause, much less a sufficient cause for not wanting to stay together at the matrimonial house. The respondent on the other hand, is willing to keep and maintain her. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of having neglected or refused to keep and maintain the petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1 left the society of the respondent and refused to join his company, she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance allowance.

In Namita Rani Bose V/s Dipak Kumar Bose, 1982 (2) H.L.R. 58 (AII.) – it was observed that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” means unable to earn a livelihood. This obviously means that the earning is such that the wife can maintain herself without depending upon others. But merely because she is earns a paltry sum by engaging herself in some profession, which may not even be sufficient to give one meal a day, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself with the income she earns. The income should be such which is sufficient for an ordinary person to be maintained out of it.

In Zubedai V/s Abdul Khader, 1978 Cr. L. J. 1460 (Bombay) – it states that, Karnataka High Court has taken a contrary view in case of Zubedai holding the petitioner must positively aver in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and he has neglected to maintain her.

In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.