Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
BABITA – Appellant
Versus
MUNNA LAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the maintenance case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintenance entitlement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. objectives of section 125 cr.p.c. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. conditions under which maintenance is denied. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. ex-parte decrees do not preclude maintenance claims. (Para 54 , 56) |
| 6. conclusion and directions for case reassessment. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No. |
| 1. | Factual Background | 3-7 |
| 2. | Submissions of learned counsels | 7-8 |
| 3. | Section 125 Cr.P.C. | 8-11 |
| i. Objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C. | 8-10 | |
| ii. Essential ingredients for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. | 10-11 | |
| iii. Grounds on which maintenance can be denied | 11 | |
| 4. | Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act | 11-12 |
| 5. | Inter-relation between Section 9 HMA and Section 125 Cr.P.C. | 12-19 |
| 6. | Findings | 20-32 |
| 7. | Mere decree of Section 9 HMA does not disentitle grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. | 33-35 |
| 8. | Conclusion | 35-36 |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 402 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter „Cr.P.C.‟) for setting aside impugned judgment dated
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
