Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 6760
VINITA PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
RAKESH PANDEY – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-000031-000031 / 2024
03-01-2024
S. K. VERMA
The court ruled that previous denials of maintenance based on adultery allegations were invalid after the appellant's discharge, necessitating a reevaluation of the maintenance claim.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance Laws - The court revisited the issue of maintenance after previous denials based on allegations of adultery, noting that the appellant was discharged from such allegations. The Trial Court is directed to consider the relevant judgment dated 28.04.2018. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Judicial Review - The court quashed previous orders denying maintenance and restored the case for reconsideration in accordance with law. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was denied maintenance by the Trial Court and High Court due to allegations of adultery, which were later discharged.
Findings of Court:
The previous judgments denying maintenance were quashed, and the case was restored for reconsideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of maintenance based on adultery allegations was justified after the appellant's discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discharge from adultery allegations necessitated a reevaluation of the maintenance claim.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Trial Court, Sessions Court and the High Court have denied maintenance to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has indulged into adultery. However, it is not in dispute that vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2012 the case has resulted into discharge of the appellant herein. 4. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate that learned Trial Court takes into consideration judgment and order dated 28.04.2018 and revisit the issue of maintenance. 5. As such, the judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court dated 15.12.2015 and 28.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Court and by the High Court dated 28.08.2023 are quashed and set aside. Misc. No.12/2013 is restored to the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.06 13:10:30 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ..............................J ( B.R. GAVAI ) ..............................J ( SANDEEP MEHTA ) NEW DELHI; ..............................J ( B.R. GAVAI ) ..............................J ( SANDEEP MEHTA ) NEW DELHI; JANUARY 03, 2024 ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 49667/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-08-2023 in CRMP No. 1293/2016 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur) VINITA PANDEY PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAKESH PANDEY RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.260148/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.260150/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.260151/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 03-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.N. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Verma, AOR Dr. S.k.verma, Adv. Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Adv. Mr. Janmejay Verma, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Verma Chandok, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nakul Rai, Adv. Mr. Kailashi Uday Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)
