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

1996 Supreme(Ker) 16

V.V.KAMAT, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Joy s/o Immatty Chakkunny – Appellant
Versus
Usha w/o Immatty Joy – Respondent


Advocates:
M/s. P. Vijayabhanu and T.A. Unnikrishnan, for Appellants.

Judgement

KAMAT, J.: - The concept of maintenance had a long travel, from the days when Sir Henry Mayne described Hindu marriage or relationship between a man and a woman with one end absolutely loose. This has to be abreast with the changing needs and situation. What was anachronistic became suitable to application of the demands of the changing needs. Maintenance for judicial purposes has its own pragmatics having relation to the need and necessity to make provisions for securing reasonable bio-economic as well as biocultural requirements for persons such as shelter, food, garment and health. The need to provide reliefs of maintenance emanate from social ethics and personal economics and this need is sought for both on the moral and secular grounds. Maintenance is a personal obligation and where there is estate, the rights in maintenance could be worked against the estate and there can be charge upon it. It is said in the context of the position of a woman that the social ethics is heavily overloaded against them on counts more than one. Courts have projected considerations relating to the legal right of maintenance, taking into consideration the above aspects, even to the extent









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