U.B.SAHA, S.TALAPATRA
Dulal Shil – Appellant
Versus
Dali Shil – Respondent
S. Talapatra, J.
Having questioned the legality of the order dated 10.07.2014 directing payment of maintenance pendentelite and expenses of the proceeding in Misc. 26 of 2014, related to the Title Suit (Divorce) 410 of 2013 delivered by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the petitioner who instituted the suit seeking dissolution of marriage by decree. The respondent herein, in the Title Suit (Divorce) 410 of 2014, filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for provisioning maintenance pendentelite and the expenses of the proceeding. By the order dated 10.07.2014, the petitioner has been directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.5,000/by the next date and to provide maintenance @Rs.3,000/per month w.e.f. 01.07.2014 till disposal of the Title Suit (Divorce) 410 of 2013. It has been further directed that the remittance be made by the money order within 10th day of every English calendar month. The petitioner shall also bear the charge for money order. The petitioner however has been given liberty to remit in the bank account of the respondent, if the detail
Mohanlal Maganlal Thakker vs. State of Gujarat
Firm Ramchand Manjilal v. Firm Goverdhandas Vishindas Ratanchand
Tarapore & Co. vs. M/s. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow and Anr.
Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra
Kuppuswami Roa vs. The King, reported in
Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr
Inspector of Police and Ors. vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate
Raghvendra Singh Choudhury vs. Smti. Seema Bai
Central Bank of India v. Gokul Chand : AIR 1967 SC 799
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal : AIR 1978 SC 1807
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.