LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Adv Aneesh Trivedi 9424449500 (Advocate)     15 October 2016

Dont give maintenance

Jabalpur high court ke maha chutiya judges ka maha chutiyapa ka ek prachand karnama:

isme unhone petitioner ko bola ki wife ne ek baar sec9 ki decree complince ki aur wo chali gayee to dubara sec09 dalo jabki petitioner ne execution ka case lagaya tha jisme court ke decree ki avhelna karne par property attachment ki karwahi ki maang ki gayee to lower court ka chutiya judge bola wife naukri karti hai aap uske paas jakar raho fir iski revision HC jabalpurt me ki to waha ke chutiyao ne maha chutiyape ka decision diya  jise aap is link

per pad sakte hai

is citaiton ko aap dusre case me use kar sakte hai jaise agar pati ke khilaf 125 ka order hua to wo ek maaah ka paisa bhare yane decree execute kare fir paise dena band kar de agar judge kahe to kahna is citation ke adhar per decree execute ho gayee ab naye paise ke liye wife ko naya case karne ko bolo.....

waise ye judgment mere favor ka hi sirf wife ko pareshan karne ke liye lagaya tha court ko ye batana tha ki mai to usko rakhan chahta hu isliye case dala hai.......isme usne jhute kathan kiye to perjury me uske khilaf jayaenge.. so it is useful to me also for others so stop paying money to wife after paying one or two times

judgement is attachere here

Shri I.D. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appears for the respondent, though represented.
Today, this civil revision is listed for admission.
Present counsel for the petitioner heard on the point of admission
and the challenged order passed by the District Judge, Damoh in Execution
Case No. 67A/2009 dated 23.10.2013 is perused.
Present counsel for the petitioner submits that a decree for restitution
of conjugal rights was passed in Execution Case No. 67A/2009 in favour
of the present petitioner and against his wife Smt. Kavita Trivedi
It appears that after passing of decree, the respondent lived with the
petitioner from June 2010 to 08.06.2011 and in the meanwhile, a daughter
was born to her on 05.05.2011. Thus, the executing Court has recorded the
finding that the decree was complied with by the respondent and if
thereafter on 08.06.2011, respondent has left the house of the petitioner,
then it could afford a new cause of action to the petitioner, but the relating
decree has already been satisfied. It is also clear from the order that the wife
of the petitioner is in service in Nepa Nagar School, District-Khandwa
while the petitioner is a resident of District-Damoh. There appears no any
illegality or irregularity in the above-mentioned order passed by the District
Judge, Damoh, which is under challenged in this revision. Thus, the
revision petition filed by the petitioner appears to be not maintainable, as
the decree was complied with. Thus, it is dismissed summarily.


 6 Replies

Adv Aneesh Trivedi 9424449500 (Advocate)     15 October 2016

ye jabalpur high court ka hai aap is web site


case type CR

case no 00044

year 2014

se prapat kar sakte hai

This is a settled case law. Nothing new here. Most Advocates usually don't know this. Eventually client suffer.

Each time wife needs to file application asking alimony at end of each year. If she doesn't ask, u (husband) need not pay.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     16 October 2016


View at:


Adv Aneesh Trivedi 9424449500 (Advocate)     16 October 2016

@ gyan prakash

it is about alimony you are telling to file application for alimony ammout

and i am talking about the order for which full trial was conducted about 8 to 12 months...

i am telling about to deny the order not applciation...

Adv Aneesh Trivedi 9424449500 (Advocate)     16 October 2016

@ kumar Doab

sir mine case is CR-44-2o14 jabalpur high court

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query