Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

yogesh (will tell you later)     16 January 2014

High interim maintenance awarded to child?

My sister in law is qualified medical specialist and is drawing 1 lakh per month has been living speraltely with 2 children( 4 years and 2 years) filed the case of maintenance 125 CrPC aginst my brother who is also doctor and is earning 56K after deductions..The Ld JMIC passed the interim order of 12k of 4 year child and 8k for 2 year child who are living in small town A TOTAL OF 20K for bothe children and none for wife..My query is whether such amount of maintenance is justified? if yes , whether the income of mother shall be taken in to consideration before awarding any interim maintenance? what is the suggestion at thsi stage for the order passed by Ld JMIC??



Learning

 9 Replies

Kapil Chandna (Lawyer at Supreme Court of India)     16 January 2014

Dear,

I think the same has been awarded in clear violation of fact that the wife is earning more than husband and section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly says that the maintenance  would be granted if the other party is unable to maintain, but in the present case the children's were being taken care by the mother, still I would such a high amount is clearly in violation of the settled principles established by Hon'ble Courts time and again, moreover why the children would need such a high amount at such a small age. Better approach Hon'ble High Court challenge the same.

Advocate Kapil Chandna

9911218741

Kapil Chandna (Lawyer at Supreme Court of India)     16 January 2014

And if your sister-in-law is living separately without any sufficient cause, then she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance as per the same section only.

ashoksrivastava (scientist)     17 January 2014

 

Originally posted by : yogesh


My sister in law is qualified medical specialist and is drawing 1 lakh per month has been living speraltely with 2 children( 4 years and 2 years) filed the case of maintenance 125 CrPC aginst my brother who is also doctor and is earning 56K after deductions..The Ld JMIC passed the interim order of 12k of 4 year child and 8k for 2 year child who are living in small town A TOTAL OF 20K for bothe children and none for wife..My query is whether such amount of maintenance is justified? if yes , whether the income of mother shall be taken in to consideration before awarding any interim maintenance? what is the suggestion at thsi stage for the order passed by Ld JMIC??

@Yogesh Was the evidence regarding lady's income put before court?

regards ASHOK

yogesh (will tell you later)     18 January 2014

No it was the interim maintenance..No evidences has been recorded..we have file the number of docuemnts that she was earning..file the 91 CRPC..and even file the 340 Crpc..finally we attache the copy of her employment appointment letter which she has filed before the SCI ( for Transfer petition of Divorce pending there)..The Ld JMIC didnot awarded any thing to the women but awrded high maintencne to children..( INDRIECTLY ITS ALSO MAINTENANCE TO WIFE) ...Is there any judgments citations there which speaks that Ld JMIC has not appreciated the income of wife before awarding maintenance to the children???

sandykrish (Interested in Family LAW)     18 January 2014

Yogesh good move appeal in HC put in all the evidences you have use crpc 91 effectively call for court record I am rest assured that the quantum of interim maintenance will be reduced is she is leaving separetely also maintenance to chidren cant be avoided. It is better for you to reconcile this matter and arrive at some conclusions

S.QAISAR ALI ADV. (Advocate)     19 January 2014

if the order of j m  is passed that can be challenged in higher court.  i think such a huge amount is not proper for the maintenance of 2 kids. moreover she is also an well earning person. appeal in competent court.

radhakrishna (employee)     29 January 2014

Delhi HC Suppression of Facts. Wife guilty of contempt,maintenance dismissed with cost.

May 20, 2013498agladiatorLeave a commentGo to comments

“The conduct of the wife (respondent herein) of not disclosing to this Court about a petition being pursued by her and her conduct of concealing the material information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jallandhar obtaining an ex parte order was contemptuous and violation of an undertaking given by her.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: January 07, 2010

 

Date of Order: January 25, 2010

 

+ Cont. Cas(C) 482 of 2008

 

% 25.01.2010

 

Gurbinder Singh …Petitioner Through: Mr. V.M. Issar, Advocates

 

Versus

 

Manjit Kaur …Respondents Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate along with respondent in person.

 

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

 

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition against respondent alleging violation of an undertaking given to the Court of Additional District Judge, Jallandhar on 8th September 2000.

 

2. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. The petitioner was in the Army and the wife was working as a teacher in S.D. Model School, Jalandhar Cantt. The divorce and various other proceedings were going on between the parties. The parties with the intervention of their counsels entered into a settlement and this settlement was recorded by the Court. In that settlement, the respondent (wife) agreed that she will not initiate any type of action against petitioner or against children of the parties or against the parents of the petitioner and other relatives of the petitioner (the children were at that time living with the petitioner) before the Court of law or before any other authority and she would not do anything which would affect the character, status or reputation of the petitioner. The petitioner also gave a similar undertaking that he would not disturb respondent in any manner and he Cont.Cas(C) 482/2008 Gurbinder Singh v. Manjit Kaur Page 1 Of 3 would not institute any action against her either before the Court of law or before any authority and he will not try to castigate honour or character or reputation in any manner. Thereafter, before this Court in April’05, she (respondent) again filed an affidavit that she would abide by the undertaking given to the learned ADJ on 8th September 2000 and she would not harass or humiliate the petitioner in future and will not create any cause of action afresh. This undertaking was given by way of an affidavit. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Jallandhar Court in August’ 04 claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had neglected to maintain her and she had no source of income. There is no doubt that the respondent had a right to claim maintenance from the petitioner, if she was not able to maintain herself. A perusal of the ex parte order obtained by her from the Court of Jallandhar shows that she concealed all material facts from the Court at Jallandhar. She did not disclose that she was working as a teacher in a school at Jallandhar and that there was an agreement between the parties arrived before learned ADJ, Delhi and that she had also filed an affidavit in the High Court that she would not unnecessarily harass the husband. Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the Court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side, after giving an undertaking to the Court that she would not harass the petitioner (husband), I consider this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her. The respondent appeared in person today in the Court and admitted that at the time she filed the petition in the Jallandhar Court, she was gainfully employed as a teacher and she continued to remain in employment till 2008 i.e. even after passing of the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the ex parte order passed by learned JM would show that the respondent had concealed from the JM about her own employment, her salary from the school and her assets and contended that the respondent was drawing a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month and his income from other sources was Rs.20,000/- per month and she obtained an order of grant of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application. She did not disclose to this Court when she filed her affidavit in this Court in April, 2005 that Cont.Cas(C) 482/2008 Gurbinder Singh v. Manjit Kaur Page 2 Of 3 she had filed a petition at Jallandhar Court which was going on ex parte or that she had already preferred a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C which was pending.

 

3. I consider that the conduct of the wife (respondent herein) of not disclosing to this Court about a petition being pursued by her and her conduct of concealing the material information from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jallandhar obtaining an ex parte order was contemptuous and violation of an undertaking given by her.

 

4. I, therefore, hold the respondent guilty of contempt and a fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on her.However, after her retirement, if she seeks maintenance for herself after disclosing to the Court concerned about her pension and other income and properties, which she holds in Delhi and other places, she would be free to make a petition regarding maintenance before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

 

5. With above order, the petition stands disposed of.

 

January 25, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd

 

 

yogesh (will tell you later)     30 January 2014

If u believe me the Ld judges of High Court donot follow the judgments of previous Ld Judge..I too filed the case based on principe given in Neeraj Trivedi case vs State of Bihar and was listed before the single Judge of High Court of Delhi ..In the Judgment the Hon'ble Dhingar sir has issued directions to DGP to trnafer the FIR to Delhi by making direction to DGP bihar..such principles donot apply in my case as result I have to withdraw my Writ Petition

gautam (not disclosed)     02 February 2014

advocates, pls share your yogesh views  "Ld judges of High Court donot follow the judgments of previous Ld Judge"


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query