Delhi HC: Father cannot use money in daughter's PPF account to pay maintenance

While it is shown that the account had been closed and money taken out by the Appellant / Defendant in accordance with PPF Act and closure was not illegal, but the question is, who is entitled to the money withdrawn from this PPF Account. {Para 24}

25. As discussed above, being the investment in the name of the child, she was entitled to receive the amount. The father may have taken the money to which the Plaintiff was entitled, but it was only in the fiduciary capacity, as a Guardian, but cannot be utilized by the father to off-set his responsibility of maintenance, towards the child.

26. In the present case, though savings in PPF Account were made by the Defendant / Plaintiff's father, but the same were for the benefit of the Plaintiff / Defendant's daughter, to which she was entitled after attaining the age of majority, i.e. 18 years on 13.11.2016. The amount could not have been transferred by the Defendant to his own Account and he was liable to give this money to the Plaintiff.

27. The Defendant may have been paying the paying Rs. 12,000/- to the Plaintiff, pursuant to Order dated 18.05.2016 of the learned Family Court, Dehradun from 16.06.2016 to 28.05.2018 and paid a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to her during this period, but that was in recognition of his responsibility to maintain his daughter.

28. Learned District Judge has rightly observed that the responsibility to maintain the child, is an independent right of the father and it cannot be claimed to be adjusted against the amount of Rs. 8,13,853.79/-, which was an investment made by the father.

Ratio: The Delhi High Court recently held that a father cannot use the amount invested for his daughter’s education towards fulfilling his individual legal obligations of paying maintenance to his daughter and estranged wife.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RFA 285/2023 and CM Appl. 16953/2023

Decided On: 03.08.2026

Sudhir Kawatra Vs. Shamli Kawatra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/5419/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein

 Directions on overlapping jurisdictions

It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.

To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020

RAJNESH  Vs  NEHA & Anr

Dated: November 4, 2020.

Citation: MANU/SC/0833/2020 : (2021) 2 SCC 324

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Financially Independent Wife Earning More Than Husband Can't Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Woman

 Only because a woman more particularly a wife files

a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or

the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the

provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where

the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot

straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards

maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is

financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is

more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are

found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts

should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on

the ground that women are required to be maintained by men

or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should

be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no

financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards

of her husband, then only Courts are required to award

maintenance either interim or final. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP No. 2327 of 2026

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

SRI RAVI S @ JEEVAN S., Vs SMT. SAHANA DEVI A.,

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:30140

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should grant permanent alimony enhancement at the rate of 5% every two years due to inflation

The Appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.

8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the Appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10209 of 2024 

Decided On: 29.05.2025

Rakhi  Vs. Raja 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 789, MANU/SC/0793/2025

Print Page

Questions and answers on law {Part 92}

 Q 1:- What are Kinds of estoppel?

Ans:- “Broadly, estoppel is of three classical kinds: estoppel by record, estoppel by deed, and estoppel by conduct or representation. In modern law, promissory estoppel is also a well-recognized form, where a person who makes a clear promise, intending another to act on it, cannot later go back on it if the other has altered his position. Thus, estoppel prevents a party from denying what he earlier represented.

Brief classification

Print Page

Supreme Court: Hindu Daughter-in-Law Who Becomes Widow After Father-in-Law's Death Entitled To Maintenance From His Estate :

Section 19 of the Act provides for the maintenance of "widowed daughter-in-law" of the deceased Hindu. It simply contemplates that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law. Thus, it casts an obligation upon the father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law. The said obligation subsists only during the lifetime of the father-in-law as the aforesaid provision nowhere contemplates that the daughter-in-law would be entitled to maintenance from the estate of the father-in-law. In other words, Section 19 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas, Section 22 contemplates "maintenance of dependants" including "widowed daughter-in-law" from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim Under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. {Para 28}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 245-246 of 2026 

Decided On: 13.01.2026

Kanchana Rai Vs. Geeta Sharma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and S.V. Bhatti, JJ.

Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 54, MANU/SC/0059/2026,2026 SCC OnLine SC 59.

Print Page

THE SILENT APPEAL: Why a Judge Cannot Enhance Maintenance When the Wife Doesn’t Fight Back

 

A Domestic Violence Law Deep Dive for Judicial Officers and Legal Practitioners

Introduction: The Paradox of Appellate Justice

Imagine this: A wife receives ₹4,000 per month maintenance. She’s satisfied. But her husband appeals, saying it’s too much. The question that haunts appellate judges across India is this: Can I increase the wife’s maintenance while hearing the husband’s appeal to reduce it—even though she hasn’t asked me to?

The answer lies in one of appellate law’s most profound yet overlooked principles: You cannot appeal for someone else.

This article explains why—and why this principle matters more than you think for the future of domestic violence jurisprudence in India.

Print Page

Video on Madras High Court judgment protecting Child Welfare and Preventing Misuse of Law

 This video analyzes the landmark judgment delivered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on November 13, 2025, in CRL RC(MD) No. 1148 of 2024. The judgment highlights critical legal principles on the finality of mutual consent divorce decrees, the doctrine of natural guardianship, and the protection of women's dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It firmly rejects the misuse of maintenance provisions as a tool for perpetuating matrimonial discord by family members and emphasizes that child welfare must remain paramount, with co-parenting guided by cooperation rather than confrontation. This analysis is invaluable for judges, advocates, and legal scholars focused on family law and child maintenance jurisprudence.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Husband can not rely on customary divorce if he has not proved any custom to take such customary divorce.

 The Courts below have recorded the findings that there was a marriage between the applicant and non-applicant in the year 1961. The contention of the applicant/husband that there was a customary divorce between the parties, has been negated by the revisional Court. There is no separate adjudication by any competent Court on the point of customary divorce and even no specific point was framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class while entertaining the contention of the applicant/husband that there was a customary divorce and as per the term in the said divorce deed, the wife is not entitled for the maintenance. It is admitted position that, there was no legal divorce between the parties. Therefore, the revisional Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment held that,

After going through the record, it appears that original of the said document was brought by Gulabrao at the time of evidence. On the basis of that this xerox copy was exhibited. However it is material to note that there is absolutely no evidence on record about any such customary divorce. I find that the said document has no legal sanctity. Thus, the document purporting to be a divorce deed is of no value in the eye of law and hence that is of no help for deciding the dispute between the parties. {Para 31}

32. On perusal of the contents of the application and upon hearing learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, no case is made out to upset the aforesaid findings recorded by the revisional Court. Therefore, there was no legal divorce. The customary divorce has not been proved by the applicant by way of bringing any evidence on record about any such custom to take such customary divorce.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3897 of 2007

Decided On: 15.12.2009

Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole Vs. Dwarkabai Gulabrao Ingole

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.

Citation: 2010 CRLJ 1471,MANU/MH/1468/2009.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: husband is deemed to have refused and neglected to maintain wife if husband is residing with second wife or another woman

 Even assuming for a moment that there was a divorce between the parties, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan MANU/SC/0412/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 2374. The Hon'ble Court in paragraph 7 held thus

Even though wife was unable to prove that husband has remarried, yet the fact remained that the husband was living with another woman. That would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain her. Statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. {Para 33}

34. It clearly follows from the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the husband is remarried and living with another woman that itself entitles the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refuse by the husband to maintain her.

In the instant case, it is admitted position that, the applicant has remarried with some another woman. Therefore, in the facts of this case it was not necessary for the wife to prove that, the husband has neglected or refused to maintain her. In fact as per the aforesaid pronouncement, the burden was on the husband to prove otherwise.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3897 of 2007

Decided On: 15.12.2009

Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole Vs. Dwarkabai Gulabrao Ingole

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.

Citation: 2010 CRLJ 1471,MANU/MH/1468/2009.

Print Page

Gujarat HC: What is duty of the court when it comes to its knowledge that future maintenance right was relinquished on payment of illusory amount of maintenance?

 The principle underlying the lump sum payment as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bai Tahira's case (supra) can be equally applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The basic principle is that the object of the lump sum payment to be made is to obviate the destitution of the divorcee and to provide her with the wherewithal to maintain herself. As laid down by the Supreme Court, there must be a rational relation between the sum so paid and its potential as provision for maintenance. In the instant case the petitioner-wife was forced to go to Court for claiming her maintenance. Under the circumstances, then prevailing she gave up her right to claim future maintenance "voluntarily" for lump sum amount and executed the deed of divorce. Now, when she has preferred an application for maintenance, it cannot be said that the application at the instance of the petitioner-wife claiming maintenance is not maintainable because she had surrendered her future right of maintenance. Whenever in application for maintenance it is contended that because lump sum amount is paid towards the claim of future maintenance and therefore the application is not maintainable, it would be the bounden duty of the Court to examine whether the lump sum amount of maintenance mentioned in the deed of divorce or claimed to have been paid otherwise, had any rational connection with the necessities of life to be provided for in future and was it not an illusory amount or was it sufficient amount to maintain herself for the entire life?{Para 7}

8. This principle has its roots in the public policy and the provisions of law. Underlying public policy, behind the provisions of law regarding maintenance is that one who is destitute should be provided maintenance by the person whose duty it is to maintain such person. This public policy cannot be circumvented and the object of law cannot be frustrated by making a payment of illusory amount of maintenance. As far as the surrender of future right to maintenance is concerned, answer is very simple. Agreement to surrender such right of future maintenance for illusory amount of maintenance would be unfair and unconscionable. Such agreement is entered into between two unequals. One (i.e. wife, child or parents, as the case may be) is destitute and helpless and another (i.e. husband, father or son as the case may be) relatively stronger and better placed in the society. Ordinarily this will be the position, though exception cannot be ruled out completely. In this background, if the amount determined for future maintenance is illusory, the agreement to surrender the right to maintenance also would be unlawful as it would be against the public policy and also unconscionable and unfair. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Decided On: 06.09.1985

Bai Laxmiben Vs. Bharatbhai Vechatbhai Patel and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Ravani, J.

Citation: 1986 DMC 1 129,1986 CRI LJ 1418,1986 GLR 1 272,1985 SCC ONLINE GUJ 187, MANU/GJ/0123/1985.

Print Page

Madras HC: How to decide interim maintenance enhancement application filed by wife even though she is having sufficient income?

Further, the fact that the respondent has received substantial monies for the last three financial years is also not in dispute. The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance. {Para 16}

18.In Rajnesh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no straight jacket formula for fixing maintenance and the Court has to waive the status of parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, their education qualifications, any independent source of income accruing to the wife and whether such income would be sufficient to enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether the wife was employed before and after marriage, etc.

19.Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh's case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle. In view of the aforesaid discussions regarding her holding of immovable properties as well as the substantial income by way of substantial dividends of the Company. 

 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CRP.No.2590 of 2025

& CMP.No.14720 of 2025

Dr.C.Amarnath Vs  Dr.J.Remabarathi 

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

Dated : 22.08.2025.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Wife can claim maintenance after divorce despite prior compromise agreement if she is unable to maintain herself

Apparently, Ext.B2 was executed in the year 2004, and the claim for maintenance was raised only in the year 2012. Thus, without much discussion, it can be held that the consolidated payment of Rs. 30,000/- towards permanent alimony under Ext. B2 compromise will not disentitle the first appellant from raising a claim for maintenance at a later stage if she is actually unable to maintain herself. Therefore, it can be concluded that the first appellant is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent, notwithstanding the terms of Ext.B2 agreement, either under Section 37 of the Act or under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., if she was unable to maintain herself during the relevant time. {Para 20}

 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar, JJ.)

Sheela George and Another V V.M. Alexander 

Mat. Appeal No. 586 of 2017

Decided on June 2, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3501

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court may award maintenance to wife up to 25% of husband's income and to child 15% of husband's income

 A sum of Rs. 250/- per month for the maintenance of the wife of a person occupying the position of the appellant cannot be said to err on the liberal side. The High Court in our opinion very rightly fixed that sum making it subject to the limit of 25 per cent of the income as found by the Income-tax authorities. We have no reason to take any different view. Subject to our observation as to the determination of the income of the appellant, the appeal against the wife is dismissed with costs.

{Para 21}

22. As regards the appeal in the case of the daughter, the High Court fixed the amount of monthly maintenance at Rs. 150/- till such time as she marries but so as not to exceed 15% on the average monthly income of the father. No ground was shown as to why we should make a variation in the amount fixed in her case. We uphold the finding of the High Court in this respect. There will be one set of hearing fee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2564 and 2589 of 1966

Decided On: 20.10.1970

Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.N. Ray and G.K. Mitter, JJ.

Author: G.K. Mitter, J.

Citation: 1970 INSC 225, MANU/SC/0349/1970,(1970) 3 SCC129.

Print Page

Bombay HC: In proceeding for maintenance U/S 18 of Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, jurisdiction of court is ascertained as per provisions of S 20 of CPC

 In the present case, the suit for maintenance has been filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Unlike the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no specific provision in regard to the court to which a petition shall be presented is made in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court must of necessity fall back upon the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. {Para 4}

5. Though under section 19(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a petition under that Act can be presented inter alia to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized, this can be construed to be a legislative recognition of the fact that the place where the marriage was solemnized does constitute a part of the cause of action for the purpose of a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Undoubtedly, the provisions of Section 19 are applicable only to that Act and cannot be extrapolated to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 19(1) is, however, relevant for the limited purpose of demonstrating that it embodies legislative recognition of the fact that the place where the marriage was solemnized does constitute a part of cause of action, in certain cases.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Shri. Chandrakant Anandrao Gurav Vs. Sou. Manisha Chandrakant Gurav

Civil Revision Application No.1386 of 2001

23rd April, 2002

Citation: 2002(4) ALL MR 295.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage is Not Legally Dissolved?

The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No. 1 is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the Respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the Appellant No. 1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage. {Para 17}

18. In the opinion of this Court, when the social justice objective of maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant No. 1. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance since Ramesh Chander (supra). An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution, but would also give legal sanction to the actions of the Respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations. The only conceivable mischief that could arise in permitting a beneficial interpretation is that the Appellant No.1 could claim dual maintenance--however, that is not the case under the present facts. We are aware that this Court has previously denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages (See Yamunabai (supra) and Bakulabai (supra)). However, a plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2025.

Decided On: 30.01.2025

N. Usha Rani and Ors. Vs. Moodudula Srinivas

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: S.C. Sharma, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0142/2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can grant maintenance U/S 125 of CRPC to wife after her divorce if she fails to incorporate this fact by amending her application?

Since there was no dispute about divorce and it was a ground available for maintenance under Section 125 Explanation (b), the learned Magistrate could have considered these subsequent developments. Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh (supra) and recorded the finding in para 9 that on account of the Explanation quoted above, a woman who has been divorced by her husband on account of a decree passed by the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, continues to enjoy the status of a wife for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance allowance from her ex-husband. {Para 7}

8. There is no dispute on the law that such a right of divorcee exists till she remarries. There is no such averment that the respondent/wife was remarried. In view of the facts of the case and admitted position, the Court is of the view that the rule of pleading would not strictly apply in such cases. Therefore, the subsequent development of divorce has been correctly considered by the learned Revisional Court. Though the respondent/wife failed to establish that she was refused and neglected to maintain, the subsequent facts of divorce gave her a new ground which may be considered during the pendency of the application and the learned Magistrate ought to have considered it. The learned Revisional Court has corrected the errors of law of the Magistrate. However, the learned Revisional Court erred in granting the maintenance from 21.11.2005. If the right of the wife was accrued under Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the divorce and she was not entitled to the maintenance on the ground available under Section 125(1), she would not be entitled to the maintenance from the date of the desertion or filing the petition. Except this error, the judgment and order of the learned Revisional Court is legal, proper and correct. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 250 of 2008

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Kishor Fulchand Pawar Vs. Nanda

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Mehare, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/6101/2024,2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3115,2024:BHC-AUG:23068

Print Page

Supreme Court: Bail In matrimonial offences Can't Be Conditional On Payment Of Maintenance

 With the above, the counsel argues that the High Court while considering bail, should not have imposed a precondition on the appellant for paying maintenance (Rupees Four Thousand per month), as was recorded in the impugned order dated 17.07.2023. {Para 7}

9. When application for bail is filed, the Court is required

to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the

appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face

Trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for exercise

of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not therefore be

warranted.

11. Having considered the above, we are of the view that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay Rupees Four Thousand per month as maintenance to the informant (respondent no.2) was not merited. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).13083/2023

 SRIKANT KUMAR @ SHRIKANT KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Dated: JANUARY 06, 2025.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Muslim Wife Residing Separately From Husband On His Contracting Second Marriage Can Claim Maintenance Under CrPC /BNSS

 The Muslim Personal Law, though, permits the husband to contract a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage in exceptional circumstances, specifically mandates that the husband is bound to treat both wives equally and equitably. A Muslim wife who resides separately from her husband on his contracting a second marriage is not disentitled from claiming her statutory right of maintenance under CrPC/BNSS [See Badruddin v Aisha Begum (1957) All. LJ. 300]. The fact that the husband has a second wife and is liable to maintain her cannot be a factor in denying maintenance to the first wife or reducing the quantum of maintenance she is entitled to.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC NO. 334 OF 2022

 HASEENA  Vs  SUHAIB

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Dated:  15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025

Citation: 2025:KER:2953.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court must award interest on maintenance amount

 The trial Courts are not awarding interest on maintenance amount. There is no any legal ban to award interest on that amount of maintenance. The husbands or fathers are many a times are not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together. They have no fear or burden to payment of interest on that amount of maintenance. It is a serious legal mischief in mischief. Section 125 of the CrPC does not prohibit to wards maintenance. Therefore, Courts of District Judiciary are expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that these weaker sections of the society will get their maintenance amount expeditiously. It will serve the purpose of speed justice. Thus, in order to secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily which is an object of justice interest must be awarded which is rationally expected. Their amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side which deprives them for maximum period from it. Thus, it is now mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance for that this judgment shall be circulated to the District Judiciary of Maharashtra.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2023

Decided On: 10.05.2024

Prakash Vs. Vithabai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3360/2024.

Print Page