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

1990 Supreme(MP) 56

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
LAXMIBAI – Appellant
Versus
AYODHYA PRASAD ALIAS RAMADHAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Kishore Shrivastava, P.R.Bhave

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife raises an important legal question as to whether she can be denied maintenance pendenate lite under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') only on the ground that her marriage with her husband is the second marriage during the subsistance of the first marriage and the same is void under S. 11 read with S. 5 (i) of the Act.

( 2 ) A few facts may be stated before deciding the legal question arising for decision in the case. The wife-applicant filed proceedings in the matrimonial Court for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Act and during the pendency of those proceedings made an application for payment of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month as also a lump sum amount of Rs. 400/- as litigation charges. In the course of enquiry on the question of liability of the husband to pay interim maintenance, the wife stated orally in the witness box that she was married to the non-applicant-husband about 6-7 years back and has an issue from him. She also stated that her husband owns about 100-150 acres of land and has substantial means of














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