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

1991 Supreme(MP) 25

P.C.PATHAK, S.K.CHAWLA
KRISHNA JAIN PETITIONER – Appellant
Versus
DHARAM RAJ JAIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAKESH JAIN, Sohan Choudhary

P. C. PATHAK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is reference made by one of us (Pathak-J) to Division Bench to answer the following questions. " (I) whether recording of reasons is sine qua non for awarding maintenance from the date of application? (ii) If so, whether the order must be modified, making it payable from the date of order? (iii) Whether the 'date of order' in S. 125 (2) means the date of order of the Revisional Court also"?

( 2 ) SMT. Krishnabai was married to non-applicant Dharamraj 16 years before the date of petition in accordance with Hindu Rites. She alleged that when Ku. Kalpana applicant No. 2 was in the womb, the non-applicant snatched her ornaments and forced her to return to her parents. After the birth of the child, she requested him to take her back, but he gave no response. The applicant with her child continues to stay with her parents. On 4-6-1982 the applicant and her child filed petition u/ S. 125 Cr P. C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the mother and Rs. 200/- to the child from the date or application. The non-applicant filed his written statement on 30-9-1982. The trial Court allowed the application by order dated 24-4



















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