Revision against Family Court order awarding divorced wife Rs. 1,500/- monthly maintenance. Held that divorced wife entitled to maintenance; awarded amount reasonable considering husband's income as electrician. Application dismissed at admission stage.
Revision Application dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
REVN457.10.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2010 IN PETITION NO. E- 435 OF 2005
Mr. Vijay Bahadur Mewalal Bind.
... Applicant.
V/s.
Mrs. Ushadevi Vijay Bahadur Bind.
... Respondent.
Mr. Anil Mishra for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.
CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J.
DATED : 16th MARCH 2011.
P.C. :-
The Respondent herein had filed an application before the learned Judge of the Family Court for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being Petition No. E-435 of 2005. Said application was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 5th April 2010. The Respondent is granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of the order. This order is challenged by the Petitioner.
2 REVN457.10.sxw
against the Respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He tried to contend that after the divorce, the Respondent is not entitled for maintenance. This submission of Mr. Mishra is required to be rejected. Looking to the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(i) The Revision Application is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court was reasonable
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Vijay Bahadur Mewalal Bind
Mrs. Ushadevi Vijay Bahadur Bind
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
