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

2020 Supreme(MP) 1028

VIVEK RUSIA
Neha – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Rituraj Bhatnagar for applicant; Lucky Jain for respondent.

ORDER :

1. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

The marriage of the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 4.2.2014 under the Hindu customs and rituals. After the marriage, they lived almost two years together, thereafter now they are living in separation since November 2016. The respondent issued a legal notice to the present applicant under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereafter filed the petition before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage.

2. The present applicant filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent on the ground that he has neglected or refused to maintain her and she is not having sufficient means to maintain herself. The respondent is working in the M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd ( in short : MPPKVVCL) and getting salary of Rs.65,000/- per month and despite that he is not giving any maintenance for her survival.

3. The respondent appeared and filed the reply denying the averments made in the application. He has alleged that the applicant without any reason has deserted him. Her behaviour was not cordial with him. She did not like him due to his baldness.

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