SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1129

D.K.JAIN, C.K.THAKKER
SHAIL KUMARI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
KRISHAN BHAGWAN PATHAK @ KISHUN B. PATHAK – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

  1. Maintenance Rights and Legal Duty:
  2. A wife has a right to maintenance from her husband immediately upon marriage. This right is both moral and legal (!) .
  3. The primary consideration in maintenance cases is whether the wife was justified in living separately from her husband while still claiming maintenance (!) .

  4. Effective Date of Maintenance:

  5. Maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application or from the date of the order, depending on the court's decision (!) (!) .
  6. The court must record reasons if it grants maintenance from the date of the application rather than the date of the order (!) (!) .

  7. Interim Maintenance:

  8. Even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, courts have implied power to grant interim maintenance to prevent destitution during proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
  9. The law was amended to expressly authorize courts to grant interim maintenance, recognizing its importance for speedy relief (!) (!) .

  10. Legal Provisions and Amendments:

  11. The maximum ceiling for maintenance was initially Rs. 500 per month but was removed after amendments, allowing courts to fix reasonable amounts based on circumstances (!) (!) .
  12. The amendments also clarified that maintenance is payable from the date of the order or, if ordered, from the date of the application, with the court required to record reasons if deviating from the default (!) (!) .

  13. Principles for Fixing Maintenance:

  14. The amount of maintenance should be fair and proportionate to the respondent's means, considering property and income sources of the wife and her inheritance (!) (!) .
  15. The court should consider all relevant facts, including property, inheritance, and income, when determining the quantum of maintenance (!) (!) .

  16. Court’s Discretion and Record-Keeping:

  17. Orders under Section 125 must include points for determination, the decision, and reasons for the decision (!) (!) .
  18. Courts have discretion to award maintenance from either the date of the application or the date of the order, but reasons must be recorded if the date differs from the default (!) (!) .

  19. Legal Interpretation:

  20. The law should be interpreted in a manner that advances its social purpose, ensuring speedy and fair relief for applicants (!) (!) .
  21. The power to grant interim maintenance is implied and necessary for the effective operation of the law, even if not explicitly stated (!) (!) .

  22. Specific Case Findings:

  23. Maintenance was granted to the wife and daughter from the date of the application, but this was later modified to the date of the court order (!) (!) .
  24. The amount of maintenance was reduced from the initial award, aligning with the legal ceiling and the respondent's financial capacity (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this document.


JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by appellant No. 1-wife and appellant No. 2-daughter of respondent herein-Krishan Bhagwan Pathak. The appellants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on May 3, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2007. By the said order, the High Court partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent-husband and modified the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur on October 30, 2006 in Miscellaneous Case No. 280 of 1997, renumbered as No. 1 of 2005.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies before more than three decades. From the said wedlock, nine children were born. Appellant No. 2-Kumari Babli is the youngest among all and she is the only child staying with her mother-appellant No. 1. At the time of filing of the application, she was of twelve years.

4. On July 21, 1997, the appellants filed a case for maintenance in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur under Section 125 of the Co



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top