IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. Midha, J.
Kusum Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Kumar Sharma - Respondent
FAO 369 of 1996
Decided On : 06-08-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court examines financial capacity for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. feedback from family courts considered for guidelines. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. importance of comprehensive affidavits in maintenance. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court relevance on maintenance principles. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. sections 24 and 25 provisions for alimony. (Para 19 , 25) |
| 6. modified affidavit procedures established for cases. (Para 64 , 65 , 84) |
| 7. future guidelines and practices on maintenance discussed. (Para 88 , 91) |
JUDGMENT
1. In matrimonial cases, the Court has to ascertain the financial capacity/status of both the parties for fixing maintenance. In many developed countries, the law prescribes a comprehensive format of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both the parties at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation. However, there is no provision of law in our country for directing the parties to disclose their assets, income and expenditure in a particular format.
2. Vide judgment dated 14th January, 2015, this Court, after considering the International Best Practices, issued directions and formulated an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both parties at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation. This Court modified the aforesaid directions and format of assets, income and expenditure vide judgments dated 29th May, 2017 and 06th December, 2017.
3. In the earlier judgments dated 14th January, 2015; 29th May, 2017 and 06th December, 2017, this Court considered ten affidavits of assets, income and expenditure used in five countries. Fifty more formats of affidavits of assets, income and expenditure of various countries namely U.S.A., U.K., Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Australia and South Africa have now come to the notice of this Court thereby warranting modification of the judgment dated 06th December, 2017.
4. The Family Courts have sent their response/feedback and further suggestions to the working of the guidelines mentioned in the judgment dated 06th December, 2017 which have been considered by this Court. Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate and Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate, assisting this Court as amici curiae, have given further suggestions which have also been considered.
5. In Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharia Raj Joint Venture, (2020) 266 DLT 106 (hereinafter referred to as Bhandari Engineers I), this Court formulated an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by the judgment-debtor in execution cases. Vide judgment dated 05th August, 2020 in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharia Raj Joint Venture (hereinafter referred to as Bhandari Engineers II), this Court modified and improved the format of affidavits of assets, income and expenditure to make it more comprehensive and further directions have been passed so that the execution cases are decided within a period of one year from the date of their institution.
6. The affidavits formulated by this Court in Bhandari Engineers II are far more comprehensive than the affidavit formulated by this Court for matrimonial cases. This Court considers it appropriate to incorporate the benevolent features of Bhandari Engineers II in the format of the affidavits of assets, income and expenditure in this case.
7. On careful consideration of the directions issued by this Court in Bhandari Engineers II; International Best Practices used in the developed countries; feedback and suggestions of the Family Courts and the suggestions of the learned amici curiae, the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 18th September, 2014 - (2014) 214 DLT 493 (hereinafter referred to as `Kusum Sharma I'); judgment dated 14th January, 2015 - (2015) 217 DLT 706 (hereinafter referred to as `Kusum Sharma II'); judgment dated 29th May, 2017 - MANU/DE/2406/2017 (hereinafter referred to as `Kusum Sharma III') and judgment dated 06th December, 2017 - (2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.