Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

No maintenance to errant wife.SCjudgments after 2003?

Has anydody come across any SC judgment on NO MAINTENACE TO ERRANT WIFE after the following judgment?

2.Any HC judgment?

2003 AIR 3174, , 2003(11 )SCC303 , 2003(6 )SCALE742 , 2003(7 )JT379

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1059 of 2003

PETITIONER:
Deb Narayan Halder


RESPONDENT:
Vs.

Smt. Anushree Halder


DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/2003

BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B. P. SINGH.


JUDGMENT:




(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4047 of 2002)





B.P. SINGH, J.
 



Learning

 16 Replies

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR)     12 September 2010

PLS FIND THE FULL TEXT OF THE SAME, I THINK IT IS ONLY LAST AVAILABLE ON THIS SUBJECT.


Attached File : 28 28 no maintenance for erant women sc.pdf downloaded: 2295 times

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     12 September 2010

Thank you Reddy Sir, for the citation.

aflatoon dash (health)     12 September 2010

few more relevant judgement denying alimony to wife are from bombay high court in 2010 april "HC division bench of Justices A.P. Deshpande and R.P. Sondurbaldota noted, “The trial court being of the view that the wife has deliberately suppressed her income and thus obtained an order from the court by misrepresentation, has proceeded to cancel the grant of permanent alimony with effect from the date of filing of the petition by the husband. We have perused the judgment and order passed by family court under section 25(2) of the Act. We do not see any reason to interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the family court touching the income of the wife. In our considered view, the approach of the family court for cancellation of permanent alimony is just and reasonable.

Can any body forward the judement by justice vs sirpurkar SCI in 16 nov 2009 in poonam vs mahender kumar delivered on 16 nov 2009 by supreme court where desertion by wife disentittled her from alimony


(Guest)

In any case, such judgments are dried up after 2003. What can be the possible reason?


(Guest)

@Sidhharth

That is a different perspective in law clean/unclean hands. Please find the principle in the  following judgment.

______________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002

Decided On: 03.12.2009

Appellants: Dalip Singh
Vs.
Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges:
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Disposition:
Appeal dismissed

ORDER
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.


(Guest)

@PJANARDHANA REDDY

Will you please surmise why after Deb Narayan Halder  case there are no SC judgments on No mainenance to errant wife?

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR)     13 September 2010

DEAR SIR,

IF YOU FIND ANY LATEST ON THIS SUBJECT, PLS POST FOR THE BENEFIT OF LCI COMMUNITY. I SEARCHED FROM 2000 TO UPTO TODAY IN REPORTED SC JUDGMENT, I FOUND THE ABOVE IS THE LATEST ONE.

IF YOU FIND ANY THINK PLS POST.   


(Guest)

My experience is identical which means law on NO MAINTENANCE TO ERRANT WIFE has become EXTINCT since 2003. How to invoke the law? All may please contribute ideas.

aflatoon dash (health)     13 September 2010

does the errant wife mean -wife who deserts or wife who is adultrous.What are the criterias of errant wife pleasse enlighten


(Guest)

Being and becoming of a wife which are not conducive for harmonious family life as,for xample, you have named two traits.

aflatoon dash (health)     15 September 2010

iIn that case Jogeswar sir, I have areference of the case but I dont have the judement and neither through my search I am able to locate the judement .It was pronounced in Supreme court of india by justice VS Sirpurkar

In item no3 1, coourt no 10 section IIA PETITIONof special leave to apeal9crl)...2009CRLMPno 18899 from judement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM NO 24684/2008 Of The High Courtof punjab and haryanaat chandigarh

POONAM VS MAHENDER KUMAR

with appln CRLM 1899/2009 C/DELAY in filling SLP

DATE 16/11/2009

NO ALIMONY TO FOR WOMAN WHO DESERT HUSBAND-Justice VS Sirpurkar said the law of land did not allow maintenance in cases where the wife desert her husbnad ,children and the matrimonial home.

regards

if you can help in fing the judement pl share.

sid


(Guest)

Yes.It was published in news paper. We tried to get it from SC site without success. Let us try again.


(Guest)

Could not get. Can any one try?


(Guest)

ITEM NO.31                   Court No.10             SECTION IIA


             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009
                                             CRLMP.NO(s). 18899

(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM No.
24684/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

POONAM                                                Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

MAHENDER KUMAR                                        Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) CRLMP 18899/2009 c/delay in filing SLP

Date: 16/11/2009    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY


For Petitioner(s)     Mr. S.N.Pandey, Adv.
                      Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.


For Respondent(s)


             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R

              Delay condoned.

              The special leave petition is dismissed.

 

           (Shashi Sareen)                       (Shashi Bala Vij)
             Court Master                           Court Master

_____________________

already discussed in the following link in LCI

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?quote=110292&mod_id=23238


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register