Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Maintenance

Maintenance

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Maintenance to wife – Enhancement of – Husband serving as Assistant Manager, BSNL and his salary is Rs. 1,05,871 (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One) per month – Monthly maintenance enhanced form Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAGWATI @ POONAM — Appellant Vs. GHANSHYAM — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 1318-1319…

Joint Family Property Maintenance

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – (CrPC) – S 125(3) – Maintenance to wife – Fails to comply with the order for payment of maintenance – Husband abandoned the wife, and virtually fled to Australia – Recovery of arrears of maintenance on the ground that she lives with her widowed mother, on whom she is dependent expenses. for including litigation expenses – This Court is not powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for doing complete justice between the parties – In other words, the power under Article 142 is meant to supplement the existing legal framework – Directions issued for sale of joint/coparcenary property

Nov 1, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN GOPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Maintenance

(CrPC) – Section 125 – Maintenance to wife and minor child – Husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute – Direction issued to husband shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to wife.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Maintenance

The issue of maintenance has to be decided afresh by the concerned court/family court in accordance with law, taking into account all relevant factors including the income of the respective spouses, the number of persons actually dependent on the spouses etc. The parties shall make a disclosure of their income, assets, savings, etc. before the concerned court.

Jan 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UMA PRIYADARSHINI S. — Appellant Vs. SUCHITH K NAIR — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Maintenance

IMP : (Cr.PC) – S 125 – Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under S 28A of the H M A, 1956; S 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and S 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable – Order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Ss 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.

Nov 4, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJNESH — Appellant Vs. NEHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra, and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 730…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw