Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Vijendra – Appellant
Versus
Rekhabai @ Pappi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act r/w section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2018, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar M.P., in MJCR No. 62/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondents and awarded Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance in favour respondent No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of respondent No.2/daughter from the date of application. Hence, the present petition before this Court for reduction of the maintenance amount.
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the learned trial Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs.6000/- per month on higher side. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that divorce decree has been passed by learned family Court on the ground of adultery. Such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. it is further submitted that the learned family Court has clearly stated that the respondent of this case surviving
A wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance if proven by continuous evidence; mere isolated incidents are insufficient.
The burden of proof for alleging a spouse is living in adultery lies with the husband, who must demonstrate continuous conduct to deny maintenance under Section 125.
Proper consideration of the issue of adultery is essential in determining a wife's entitlement to maintenance under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
A husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even if he alleges that the wife is living in adultery.
Grant of Maintenance – Provision provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice extended to protect rights of wife and minor children with object to prevent vagrancy and destitu....
A wife's refusal to cohabit due to ill-treatment justifies her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Family Court has discretion to order maintenance from the date of application.
A wife's refusal to cohabit due to ill-treatment justifies her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Family Court has discretion in determining the effective date for maintenance p....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article