PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Neha Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kishore – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court clarified that a wife's earning does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance, and the determination of maintenance should be based on her lifestyle during the marriage and the cost of living (!) .
The court emphasized that the husband's claim of desertion or seeking divorce does not automatically disqualify the wife from maintenance, especially when the wife is earning and capable of supporting herself (!) [17000621740004].
It was noted that the wife was earning a substantial income and residing in a costly location, which justifies her entitlement to maintenance considering her lifestyle and expenses, including her child's education (!) (!) .
The court held that the husband's income capacity is significant, and a reasonable maintenance amount should be a fraction of his income to meet the wife's and child's needs, considering the high cost of living (!) (!) .
The court modified the earlier maintenance order, increasing the monthly maintenance to a specified amount for the wife and the son, based on the husband's earning capacity and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that earning capacity and lifestyle during the marriage are crucial factors in determining maintenance, and earning alone does not disqualify a spouse from claiming maintenance (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. The petitioner-husband (respondent herein in Petition No. 1345/2018) has preferred S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1095/2018 against the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 18/2016 (268/2015), whereby the learned court below has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the wife, while awarding a monthly maintenance to the wife and son, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- (totalling Rs. 70,000/-) respectively, and thus, the husband sought quashing and setting aside of the said order. The petitioner-wife (respondent herein in Petition No. 1095/2018) has preferred S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1345/2018, challenging the same order dated 30.08.2018, while making prayer only to the extent that the amount of monthly maintenance, as already awarded by the learned court below, be enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/- (for wife) and Rs. 1,30,000/- (for son).
2. Mr. Shadan Farasat assisted by Mr. Harshit Bhurani, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the husband submitted that the marriage in this case was solemnized on 27.05.2010 at Bikaner; t
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.