Whether the family court should refuse to give maintenance to wife if she is not ready to serve husband’s mother and maternal grandmother?

For disposal of this Criminal Revision following point of

determination are being framed:

(i) Whether the opposite party No.1-wife has refused to live

with her husband without any sufficient cause, if so its

effect? {Para 9}

 21. In view of the above in the case in hand, the issue between the

husband and wife is that the wife is not agree to serve the old aged mother in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law, who are respectively 75 years and 95 years old. She creates pressure upon her husband to live separate from his mother and maternal grandmother. It is the very reason; this ground is not found sufficient that’s why the legislature while enacted under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided one of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause.

22. In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’. It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-inlaw. Accordingly, the point of determination No.1 is decided in favourt of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party No.1-wife.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No.172 of 2022

Rudra Narayan Ray Vs  Piyali Ray Chatterjee, 

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

 Pronounced on:22/01/2024.

Print Page

Whether son is liable to pay medical expenses to his mother under domestic violence Act?

In this case there is no dispute that petitioner No. 1 Ganesh was liable to pay maintenance and he would also be liable to incur medical expenses as mentioned in Section 20(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence Act. However, so far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as grandsons they would have been liable to pay maintenance under Section 22(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided their father had not been alive. When the father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is alive and is capable of paying maintenance, Section 22(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, will not be applicable and under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, petitioner No. 1 would be liable to pay maintenance to his mother i.e. respondent No. 2. As per Section 20 (b) of the Domestic Violence Act, the maintenance includes even medical attendance and treatment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 892 of 2009

Decided On: 10.02.2010

 Ganesh and Ors. Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.R. Borkar, J.

Citation:  2010   (112)   BOMLR   1082

Print Page

Whether Grandmother will be nearest relative for the purpose of grant of Parole to accused?

       

    The   question  that   falls   for consideration
before us is whether grandmother would also fall in
the category of nearest relative in view of the use of
the expression “such as” in Rule 19.   We find from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. State of
A.P. and others (1994 Supp (1) SCC 429)  and the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the   case   of  Bombay   Municipal   Corporation   and

another vs. Daily Taj Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2001 Bombay
263), that the terminology “such as” is illustrative
in nature and not exhaustive. That being so, person
of the category or class described in the Rule would
also   be   covered   by   the   description       of   nearest
relative   mentioned     in   Rule   19   though   not
specifically mentioned therein. In the instant case,
the petitioner has claimed parole for the reason of
death   of   his   grandmother.   Applying   the   above
canon   of   interpretation,   grandmother   would   also
form the part and parcel of the said class of nearest
relative. Therefore, looking to the illustrative nature
of the   said  terminology,    we   hold    that   even
the   grandmother   would   be   included   in   the   said
expression. "
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94  OF 2014
Dnyaneshwar s/o Tejrao Jadhav,

       VERSUS             
The State of Maharashtra,

    
                                             CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,
                                                        V.M. DESHPANDE,JJ.
                                           DATE : 23RD JANUARY,2014
Citation; 2015 ALLMR (CRI)4780

Print Page