LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Shake-Her (None)     16 December 2011

Beg/steal to pay her or simply beat her

Hi All,

My query: Married in 2003. Lived with my parents for few months and then sifted and lived independently. Diffrences arose between us and wife moved to her parents place and I moved to Delhi since 2005. My father disowned both of us in 2005. Maintainance u/s 125 @5000/- ex-party (I did not file any reply even after taking few adjournments from the court) ordered wef March 2007. No payments made till date. Complaint Case (NO FIR) u/s 406/498a/114/352/506/34 agaist me and parents but i did not recieve any summons/warrants since they did not have my address. My parents recieved summons and are attending this case since begining. I absconded because she lodged so many FALSE complaints, cases against me. I was declared P.O. by court in 2009. I was arrested in March 2011, got AB in April 2011 for my LLB 1st year exams and surrendered before trial court in May 2011 after my exams. Did not get bail after that and thus moved to high court and got AB from high court for my exams and studies in September 2011 after spending 6+ months in Jail. Now, my regular bail application is pending for next week . On my last hearing, High court judge told me to pay her the maintainance arrears (Rs. 3.0 lac+) within 10 days or else he will cancel my interim bail and will dismiss regular bail petition.  She have also filed for execution of maintainance order which is pending with the trial court. I do not have that much money since for almost an year, I was in Jail and not earning now. 

Now, I do not have money. Even if I borrow, I wont be able to arrange more than 25-50K. Now what? I have three ideas(I am damn serious about each one of these please):

1. Pay the arrear amount - Is she liable to claim the entire arrear amount(I've been advised online that she cannot claim more than 1 year's arrear)? Any way I can get permission from court/CM/PM/President to beg or steal (I know it is a crime but that is the only PRACTICAL wayout since I cannot earn while in jail and I do not get bail if i do not pay - SIMPLE).

2. Do not pay anything - In that case, What is the maximum term I will be in Jail? What else can happen? What if in case the regular bail is denied and AB is cancelled and I do not surrender (Yes, I mean PO again)? Will she get ex party divorce and get married again since divorce petion filed by her is also pending now.

3. Beat her (to death if I could) - Right in front of Judge/Public/Media and then surrender saying otherwise also, I have to be in Jail since I do not have money to pay for her false allegations. So better be in Prison for SOMETHIN DONE!

For Suggestions, Guidance & Legal Advice please.



Learning

 21 Replies

**Victim** (job)     16 December 2011

First of all i salute you man it seems you have gone through a lot if i was you i would have gone with your second option although i don't know what will be the maximum term you will be in jail but if you are thinking just to prevent yourself to go in jail then you can file a petition for the review of maintenance order so that atleast you will pay less then what you are suppose to ? and then once she get remarried you will be off the hook this is the only option i see. I also noticed that you are appearing for LLB exam and very soon you will start practicing as a lawyer it seem your future is very promising and you are well dedicated but only barrier is the cases which are held against you. You should wait for experts reply see what they have to advise you.....

Shake-Her (None)     16 December 2011

@ Victim, As I have mentioned, I absconded because I knew that the cases are false and I could not think of any better way to teach her a lesson(Now she is in courts for the last 7 years - so my 6-7 onths in jail are justified)

I will talk to my  counsel for this revision thing but as of now the challange is 3.0 lac maintainance arrears. That is what i need help in deciding what to do. I do not mind absconding again .... at the most will have to spend another few months but she will learn a lesson for life.

I married her, sperated from my parents, I loved her with all I had,  and she ^#*&#^!. Now I'll hate her with all she's left with .......

2 Like

**Victim** (job)     16 December 2011

Oh god but if you don't have any source of paying her then i don't see any reason court will  stop you getting your LLB degree and the once you start making money you can pay her. I think you will have to justify yourself well in court that you want to study and once you get your degree you will be able to pay her.  I feel sorry for you man but 7 years is a very long time and this is first time i have seen someone who have shown guts to fight with his wife for such a long time.

Shake-Her (None)     16 December 2011

At no cost I want to divorce her or want her to re-marry... I am stil ready to accept her and reconcile (Not forgive) ... You STARTED it, Let ME END it.

3 Like

**Victim** (job)     16 December 2011

Damn keep it up man i wish i can give you more then one Thumbs up

 

Sirf Hangama khada karna mera maqsad nahi,
Saari Koshish hai ki ye surat badalni chahiye.

Mere seene mein nahi to tere seene mein sahi,
Ho Kahin bhi aag, lekin aag jalni chahiye.
 

Sanjeev (Lawyer)     16 December 2011

As per me the detention for non payment of Maintenance cannot be 1 month relying on the below judgement

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.810 of 2010

MANOJ KUMAR PATEL @ MANOJ PATEL SON OF JOKHI PATEL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NONIA TOLA, CHAKKI PAKRI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH——PETITIONER .

Versus

1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA.

2. MUNITA DEVI WIFE OF MANOJ KUMAR PATEL, D/O MADAN PD. PATEL

3. RAMBABU @ SONI

4. SHYAM KISHORE, BOTH SONS OF MANOJ KUMAR PATEL ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SAGAR POKHARA, P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN—– RESPONDENTS..

———–

For the petitioner:- Mr. R.S.Sahay & Mr. J.J.Sahay,Advs. For the State:- Mr. Kaushal Kishore Jha, SC- 18 5 16 .09.2010 Petitioner is the husband of Respondent no.2 Munita Devi and father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent no.2 and her children, respondent nos. 3 and 4 were deserted by the petitioner; as such she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of herself as well as her two children, from the petitioner. The case was registered as Maintenance case No. 308M/2005 and heard by Principal Judge, 2

Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah. The case, on contest was decided in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4 and vide order dated 16.12.2009 the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1000/- Per month to all three (respondent nos. 2 to 4) from the date of filing of maintenance case i.e. 27.9.2005. The order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 248 of 2010 which is still pending in the High Court. However, despite the fact that there was no stay order passed in favour of the petitioner, he did not pay a single penny to his legally wedded wife and children. He has also filed matrimonial suit (Divorce No. 188 of 2007) which is pending for adjudication. Since the monthly maintenance amount was not 3

being paid to the respondents, as such respondent no.2 filed a petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah in order to get the maintenance order complied. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause, as such he appeared before the Court and made a prayer for staying the operation of the order passed in the maintenance case or for a direction that the petition be considered along with matrimonial divorce case.

On perusal of the order-sheet of

the maintenance case No. 308M/2005, it transpires that in response to show cause notice, the petitioner appeared before the Principle Judge, Family Court, West Chmparan and on 20.4.2010 the petitioner as well respondents were heard. One months time was allowed to the petitioner either to bring stay order or to make payment of entire 4

arrears amount as well as month to month maintenance amount to the respondents. On 22.5.2010, when again the matter was taken up, both the parties were heard. Since, no stay order could be obtained by the petitioner from the High Court, as such the petitioner was asked to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 1,65,000/-. Petitioner showed his reluctance in making payment, as such warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and in exception of it he was taken into custody. The matter was again directed to be listed on 5.6.2010. On 22.5.2010 petitioner has filed a petitio for staying the operation of order dated 16.12.2009, passed in maintenance case allowing maintenance in favour of respondents, but that was rejected and an order for taking the petitioner into 5

custody was passed as provided under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 2.6.2010 again the matter was taken up and the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order taking into custody was taken up for consideration. Petitioner had challenged the order stating that he could not have been ordered to be imprisoned without taking recourse to the procedure for recovery of fine as provided under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There should have been a proper order of sentencing, before taking him in custody. However, the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah, rejected the plea taken by the petitioner stating that Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in itself is a complete provision which provides that in case of failure to comply with the order for 6

payment of maintenance amount warrant of arrest can be issued, till the realization of the amount. There is no necessity to follow the procedure provided for levying fines. The person may be sentenced for the whole or any part of each months non payment of maintenance amount in execution of the warrant. For unpaid maintenance amount the person concerned may be imprisoned for a term of one month or until payment is sooner made. Only required for issuance of warrant for the recovery of any amount due under this section is that there must be an application filed by the aggrieved wife / children before the court for realization of such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. The Court if satisfied that there is just ground for not making payment of such amount was 7

on filing such application, no warrant can be issued. Since, there was no ground available in favour of the petitioner and he refused to make payment the maintenance amount without there being any reasonable ground for it, the provision under Section 125(3) was applicable. Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. provides jurisdiction to the court for issuance of warrant of arrest and for taking into custody in execution of it. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on simple reading of the provision under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., it is apparent that before issuance of warrant of arrest or taking the defaulter into custody, he should be given proper opportunity to show the reason for non-payment and only in case the Court is satisfied that without any obvious reason the direction of the Court has been 8

flouted, any order regarding issuance of warrant of arrest could have been passed. The period of imprisonment in any case could not have been exceeded beyond one month as for each period of default; there should have been fresh application and fresh order of custody for the unpaid maintenance amount for each month. In this regard the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Ashok Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2000 (1) PLJR 578) and also in the case of Shahada Khatoon and others vs. Amjad Ali and others (1999 (5) SCC 672). However on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Court below has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Kuldip Kaur vs. Surinder Singh (AIR 1989 SC 232), wherein it has been held that a person cannot be released 9

from the custody till he makes the payment.

In the decision reported in (1999) 5 SCC 672, the short question which arose for consideration was whether the single Judge of Patna High Court has correctly interpreted the provision under sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., by directing the Magistrate that he can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The Apex Court held that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one month. For breach of non-compliance 10

with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter, the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court.

Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a decision of Division Bench of Patna High has submitted that the provision of sub- section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been considered in the reported decision 2000 (1) PLJR 578. The facts in the reported decision were identical to the facts of the present case. Petitioner of that case had also filed a petition for his release and for 11

holding that his detention in the custody is illegal. The petitioner- husband had been arrested on 7.8.1995 in execution of warrant of arrest issued on 1.8.1995 by the Judicial Magistrate for default in payment of maintenance amount and its arrears. Since then, after every 14 days he was being remanded to judicial custody and continuously for three and half years he was in custody, the Division Bench while interpreting the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. held as follows:-

” From a reading of Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. it is clear that if any person who has been ordered to pay maintenance under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may take such steps for realization of amount which are 12

provided for levying fines and after execution of distress warrant it is found that any amount has remained unpaid the Magistrate may sentence such person for the whole or any part of each months allowance remaining unpaid to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment, if sooner made. So it is clear that the Magistrate has first to satisfy that the order has not been complied by a person without sufficient cause and if he finds that there is failure of the compliance of the order without sufficient cause he will issue a distress warrant for levying the amount due for every breach of the order in the manner provided for levying fines. It is further provided that after execution of distress warrant if the Magistrate finds that any amount has remained unpaid he may sentence such 13

person for the whole or part of each months allowance remaining unpaid to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment whichever is earlier. The manner provided for levying fines is prescribed under section 421 Cr.P.C. So, two conditions before sentencing a person to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance allowance are required. First the Magistrate must be satisfied that the person without any sufficient cause is not paying the maintenance and violating the order and secondly to issue warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and after its execution to ascertain the amount which has remained unpaid. If any amount is found to have remained unpaid the Magistrate may sentence such persons to imprisonment for a period of one month for the whole 14

or any part of each months allowance remaining unpaid. In other words, if after issuance of warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fine it is found that no amount has remained due, the question of sentencing the persons to imprisonment does not arise. So the Magistrate, has to see the result of execution of warrant issued for levying amount due.”

We find that the Court below has

placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Smt. Kuldip Kaur Vs. Surendra Singh and another ( AIR 1989 SC 232). But the question for consideration before the Apex Court in the matter was whether, in case of person refusing to comply the order of the Court to maintain his neglected wife or children, without reasonable cause, will be absolved of his 15

liability, merely because he prefers to go to jail. Considering every aspect of the provisions under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was held that sentencing a person to jail is mode of enforcement and not mode of satisfaction. The liability can be satisfied only by making actual payment of arrears. The Supreme Court directed the defaulting husband be put in jail till he makes the payment of maintenance allowance. However, there is no finding whether this period can be only one month or more than one month.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State has raised objection regarding maintainability of the application of habeous corpus challenging legality of the detention, stating that since the petitioner is detained in jail for flouting the order 16

of the Court under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. and there is a provision for issuance of warrant of arrest under sub-section 3 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for issuance of warrant of arrest and taking into custody, due to non-payment of arrears as well as monthly maintenance amount, the detention cannot be considered as illegal detention and writ of habeous corpus is not maintainable.

Counsel for the State has submitted, at best, the petitioner can challenge the legality of the order by filing criminal revision application before the appropriate forum. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (AIR 1974 SC 510), where the finding has been recorded as follows;-

“Where a person is committed to

17

jail custody by a competent Court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.”

On consideration of different decisions on which reliance has been placed by the parties and the provision under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C., we find that the issue has been settled by the Apex Court in (1999) 5 SCC 672 and by decision reported in 2000(1) PLJR 578. The Principle Judge, Family Court, after taking the petitioner in custody has not passed any fresh order for extension of the period in custody for fresh default of each month. Since the condition for keeping in custody as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has not been observed by the principle Judge, Family Court, the detention of petitioner beyond one months period cannot be 18

held to be legal. Once it is held that the detention is illegal, there cannot be any question regarding maintainability of the writ application. Keeping in view that the petitioner has remained in custody beyond one months period, in the facts and circumstances of the case, his detention is illegal. Accordingly direction is being issued for release of the petitioner forthwith in connection with Maintenance Case No. 308M/2005, if not wanted to remain in custody in any other case.

The writ application stands allowed.

(Mridula Mishra,J.)

(Dharnidhar Jha,J.)

Akumar

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     16 December 2011

very good effort.

1 Like

Zeeshan (Hidden)     16 December 2011

May god give you courage. You are a role model.

Thums Up

1 Like

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     16 December 2011

May you get more courage to encourage others.

1 Like

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     16 December 2011

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

 


 

(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

 

(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or

 

(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

 

(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

 

(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

 

A Magistrate of' the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate1[***] as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct::

 

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of' sufficient means.

 

2[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the Proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

 

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person]

 

Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter.

 

(a) Minor means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1975 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;

 

(b) "Wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

 

3[(2) Any Such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.]

 

(3) If any Person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to company with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's 4[ allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

 

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the dare on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

 

Explanation. If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.

 

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

 

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to, live with her, husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

 

1. The words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" omitted by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

 

2. Ins. by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

 

3. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 24-9-200).

 

4. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-200).

 

STATE AMENDMENTS


 

Madhya Pradesh:

 

In section 125, in sub-section (1), for the words "five hundred rupees" the words m' "three thousand rupees" shall be substituted.

 

[Vide M.P. (Act 10 of 1998), sec. 3 (w.e.f. 29-54998)] [Ed. This amendment has been I made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 W (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the I whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)].

 

Maharashtra:

 

In Section 125,-

 

(a) in sub-section (1),-

 

(i) for the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees" the words "not I exceeding fifteen hundred rupees" shall be substituted;

 

(ii) before the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

 

Provided that, the Magistrate on an application or submission being made, supported by an affidavit by the person who has applied for the maintenance under this sub-section, for payment of interim maintenance, on being satisfied that, there is a prima facie ground for making such order, may direct the person against whom the application for maintenance has been made, to pay a reasonable amount by way of interim maintenance to the applicant, pending the final disposal of the maintenance application:

 

Provided further that, such order for payment of interim maintenance may, in an appropriate case, also be made by the Magistrate ex parte, pending service of notice of the application, subject, however, to the condition that such an order shall be liable to be modified or even cancelled after the respondent is heard in the matter:

 

Provided also that, subject to the ceiling laid down under this sub-section, the amount of interim maintenance shall, as far as practicable, be not less than thirty per cent of the monthly income of the respondent.";

 

(iii) in the existing proviso, for the words "Provided that" the words

"Provided also that" shall be substituted;

 

(b) after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:-

 

(2A) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), where an application is made by the wife under clause (a) of sub-section (1) for the maintenance allowance, the applicant may also seek relief that the order may be made for the payment of maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the payment of monthly maintenance allowance, and the Magistrate may, after taking into consideration all the circumstances obtaining in the case including the factors like the age, physical condition, economic conditions and other liabilities and commitments of both the parties, pass an order that the respondent shall pay the maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the monthly maintenance allowance, covering a specified period, not exceeding five years at a time, or for such period which may exceed five years, as may be mutually agreed to, by the parties.";

 

(c) in sub-section (3),-

 

(i) after the words "so ordered" the words, brackets, figures and letter "either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A), as the case may be," shall be inserted;

 

(ii) after the words "each month's allowance" the words "or, as the case may be, the lump-sum allowance to be paid in lieu of the monthly allowance" shall be inserted.

 

[Vide Maharashtra Act, 21 of 1999 sec. 2 (w.e.f. 20-4-1999)] [Ed. These amendments have been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)].

 

Tripura:

 

In section 125, for the words "five hundred rupees" the words "one thousand five hundred rupees" shall be substituted.

 

[Vide Tripura Act, 9 of 1999 sec. 2 (w.e.f. 9-4-1999}] [Ed. This Amendment has been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words" not exceed of five hundred rupees in the whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)].

 

STATE AMENDMENTS

 

West Bengal:

 

In Sub-section (1) -

 

For the words "five hundred rupees" the words "one thousand and five hundred rupees" shall be submitted.

 

(2) After the existing proviso, following proviso shall be inserted, namely.

 

"Provided further that where in any proceeding under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the wife referred o in clause (a) or the minor child referred to in clause (b) or the child (not being a married daughter) referred o in clause (c) or the father or the mother referred o in clause (d) is in need of immediate relief for her or its or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Magistrate may, on the application of the wife or the minor child or the child (not being a married daughter) or the father or the mother, as the case may be, order the person against whom the allowance for maintenance is claimed, to pay to the petitioner, pending the conclusion of the proceeding the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such allowance as having regard to the income of such person, it may seem to the Magistrate to be reasonable.

 

[Vide West Bengal Act 25 of 1992 (w.e.f. 2-8-1993)] [Ed. This Amendment has been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words "not exceed of five hundred rupees in the whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f, 24-9-2001)].

 

[Vide W.B. Act 25 of 1992 (w.e.f. 2-8-1993)
 

 

 

 

 Dear Shake her

One month is the period or untill payment if sooner made

1 Like

cm jain sir (ccc)     16 December 2011

Dear shake her.

you have really shaked her. you r really role model here in this forum. Best wishes.

Rohit Shukla (Engineer)     16 December 2011

@ Shake Her - Good Going Buds ....... appreciate your clarity of ideas (though some part of it may sound destructive to some intellectual class)

Anyways, coming to the solution part - Keep your options just as an options (for the contingency) and exercise the one as very correctly suggested by Nadeem Sir and pay accordingly.

Secondly, I strongly agree with your conviction and after an year my experience have learnt that the only way to tame this frivolous people is to act just opposite to their gameplan by being supercool or be appearing to be one (even if you have are afraid within). I feel in this world of "quid pro quo" everbody wants to have everything "Money,glamour,S.x" as quickly as possible. So by "Not giving divorce", you actually put a big barrier to her future aspirations while she gradually progresses towards her unproductive stage besides earning social disrespect. But exercising this tool require strong mental strength, and I believe you have enough. 

Good Luck and God Bless ....... and a request - Please keep us updated as your case is one such which is worth tracking

Regards,

Rohit

1 Like

(Guest)

For all those who want to beat up their wives..for a relief..(BUT REMEMBER DONT DEMAND DOWRY)...refer to the below mentioned judgement...

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Richhpal Kaur Versus State of Haryana and another 1991 (II) RCR 53”, wherein it was observed that:

“Offence under section 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry”

Hope it helps many...

 

Regards,

Gautam...(no longer "The Buddha") 

1 Like

Sanjeev (Lawyer)     16 December 2011

If you feel there is no option left other than Jail better abscond and let them do what they want. The real shaking would be that you dont need to suffer as even if you are jailed for one day she would be happy and would be posting somewhere 'Shake Him' so protecting your freedom should be the first priority.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query