Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

MATA No.93 of 2012

In the matter of an application under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984.

Smt. Pratima Mohapatra @ Nepak …… Appellant

-Versus-

Dibakar Mohapatra …… Respondent

For Appellant : M/s. R.K. Patnaik, G. Acharya, S. Jena, B.C. Parija and R.R. Rout.

For Respondent : M/s. D.P. Dhal, S.K. Dash, and A. Tripathy
Continue reading Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance

Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (said Act) confers a discretion upon the Court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of the said Act

Bombay High Court
skc WP-2921-14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2014

Om Prakash Puri ..Petitioner
versus
Nandita Puri ..Respondent

Mr. I. A. Sayyed with Ms Pooja Kulkarni for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kamath with Mr. Vishal Kanade and Ms Maya Idnani for
Respondent.

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 11 September 2014
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 14 October 2014
JUDGMENT :-
Continue reading Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (said Act) confers a discretion upon the Court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of the said Act

Family Court could not have made a residence order

Bombay High Court
skc WP-6852-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6852 OF 2013
Mr. Amit Satish Shah ..Petitioner
versus
Mrs. Archana Amit Shah & Anr. ..Respondents
Mr. J. S. Kapre for Petitioner.
Ms. Seema Sarnaik for Respondent.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 11 September 2014
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 14 October 2014
JUDGMENT :-
1] This petition is directed against the order dated 11 March 2013
made by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay rent / licence fee
towards the ‘share household’ i.e. flat No. B/20, Pournima Park,
Salisibury Park, Pune or in the alternate to make arrangement for
alternative premises for the respondent and minor child on or before the
termination of the leave and licence in respect of the share household or
pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent for acquisition of
alternate premises by the respondent.
Continue reading Family Court could not have made a residence order

Dispute over custody of the daughter of the petitioner and the opposite party

Dr. Sharmistha Kar Purkayastha vs Shri Surajit Kar Purkayastha on 5 December, 2014
Author: Aniruddha Bose
1
16 05.12.2014C.O. No. 3678 of 2014 NB Dr. Sharmistha Kar Purkayastha Vs.

Shri Surajit Kar Purkayastha Mr. Kaushik Chanda, Mr. Rahul Sarkar.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Mr. Anuj singh, Mr. Debabrata Das, Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal …for the opposite party.

Continue reading Dispute over custody of the daughter of the petitioner and the opposite party

maintenance should always be awarded considering the financial and social status of the husband

Uttaranchal High Court
Smt. Kavita Sah & Another vs Arvind Sah on 4 December, 2014
CRLR No. 297 of 2014
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the revisionists.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that monthly salary of husband respondent, herein, is ` 43000/-, therefore, maintenance @ ` 5,000/- per month to wife (petitioner no. 1) and ` 3,000/- per month to minor son (petitioner no. 2), total ` 8,000/- per month is on lower side; maintenance should always be awarded considering the financial and social status of the husband.

Issue notice to respondent by registered post AD in addition to normal mode of service returnable within three weeks.

(Alok Singh, J.) 04.12.2014 SKS

Complaint under section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
561-A CrPC No. 35 OF 2014
Rakesh Manhas
Petitioners
Aruna Manhas
Respondent
!Mr. B. B. Kotwal, Advocate
^M/s V. S. Saini and I. H. Shah, Advocates

Honble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge
Date: 21.10.2014
:J U D G M E N T :
1. This petition seeks invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint(application) under section 12(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (for short the Act) filed against the petitioners by the respondent as also the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the trial Magistrate.
Continue reading Complaint under section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010

What Is Cruelty For Seeking Divorce

i) The learned counsel for appellant, to substantiate his case, relied on the following decisions:

a) In Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur , the Honble Supreme Court dealt with the expression cruelty in the context in which the said expression has been raised in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. The requisite ingredients for constituting cruelty have been mentioned in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 thus:
Continue reading What Is Cruelty For Seeking Divorce