Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Jitendrabhai Mahendrabhai Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Apekshaben Rameshbhai Rajyaguru – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
By way of present petition, the petitioner – husband has challenged the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month along with cost of application of Rs.1,000 to the respondent –wife.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pruthivraj Solanki for learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for the respondent no.1 and learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent no.2 – State of Gujarat.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – husband got married with the respondent – wife on 09.12.2001 and after the marriage, both started residing together along with the family of the petitioner – husband but somehow in the year 2009, the respondent – wife left her matrimonial house without any reason and, thereafter, she filed an application for maintenance before the learned Family Judge, Bhavnagar being Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013 inter alia praying for maintenanc
Maintenance – Obligation of husband is on a higher pedestal when question of maintenance of wife and children arises.
The court affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless disqualified, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support her, especially when she has been subjected to harassment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice to protect women and child....
The duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy of deserted wives and....
The judgment emphasizes the duty to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the need for evidence to establish income, and the balancing of interests and financial capacity in determining maintenance under....
Grant of maintenance to wife and minor daughter – Mere capacity of wife to earn something or her qualification would not be reason for denying maintenance to wife.
Grant of maintenance to wife and minor daughter – Mere capacity of wife to earn something or her qualification would not be reason for denying maintenance to wife.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and provide social justice.
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
Chaturbhai vs. Sita Bai
-
Read summaryJabsir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge Dehradun and Ors.
-
Read summaryRajnesh vs. Neha
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.