LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     26 March 2009

amount of maitenance pendente lite

the supreme court on 23/03/2009 in   Anu Kaul       v.        Rajeev Kaul  ,      

wife is admittedly employed and recieving salary @ rs. 9000/ pm. husband an executive in pvt. co.  lower court had granted rs 10000/ for litigation expenses and rs. 2000/ pm for maintenance of minor child. considering cost of education, the supreme court enhanced amount of interim maintenance from 2000/ to 5000/ pm.

information is posted for discussion .



Learning

 4 Replies

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     26 March 2009

Decisoin of supreme court dated 23/03/2009 in   Anu Kaul       v.        Rajeev Kaul       


where wife is admittedly employed and recieving salary @ rs. 9000/ pm. husband an executive in pvt. co., lower court had granted rs 10000/ for litigation expenses and rs. 2000/ pm for maintenance of minor child, the supreme court , considering cost of education, enhanced amount of interim maintenance from 2000/ pm to 5000/ pm.


information is posted for discussion

Ashey   27 March 2009

?

Prabhat Kumar (Advocate)     27 March 2009

Your question is not clear in the absence of salary details of the husband. So far as minor child is concerned his responsibility belongs to both husband and wife.


If both husband and wife are earning at par then enhancement by the Hon'ble apex court is not justified.


(Guest)

Dear Dr. Tripathi,

The problem in such Judgment is that even Apex Court ignores its own Law as in a earlier decision under Padmaja (supra) the very division bench said that if both parents earning then the child maint. is co-extensive? My que. is why Justice Tarun see earlier order applicability in this case? If the child is growing up they just considered change in circumstances (inflation / rising cost of tution fees blah blah) but equally the cost of disposal income of both parents are also coming down is not seen. 

And Two this guy earned Rs. 40 K plus he gets education re-imbursement from his cushion job which Hon'ble Justice Tarun C. just saw and ignored and on top of it the wife also earns Rs. 9 K so where is equity and natural justice in this case?. My guess is that the wife is preety so got away and think of a common man now like me and what precedent the Apex court is leaving as binding principals of Law...nothing man.....:-)

Rgds,

D. Arun Kumar, New Delhi


 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query