Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. - Granting of maintenance from the date of Application/Order - Trial court not granted maintenance as the wife found doing job before marriage - High court reversed the same but order maintenance from the date of order only - Apex court held that it was incorrect to hold that, as a normal rule, the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance - High Court has not given any reason for not granting maintenance from the date of the application. We are of the view that the circumstances eminently justified grant of maintenance with effect from the date of the application in view of the finding that the Appellant had worked before marriage and had not done so during her marriage. There was no evidence of her income during the period the parties lived as man and wife.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. - Granting of maintenance from the date of Application/Order - Trial court not granted maintenance as the wife found doing job before marriage - High court reversed the same but order maintenance from the date of order only - Apex court held that it was incorrect to hold that, as  a  normal rule, the Magistrate should grant maintenance only  from  the  date  of  the order and not from the date of  the  application  for  maintenance - High Court has not given any reason  for not granting maintenance from the date of the application.  We  are  of  the view that the circumstances eminently justified grant  of  maintenance  with effect from the date of the application in view  of  the  finding  that  the Appellant had worked  before  marriage  and  had  not  done  so  during  her marriage. There was no evidence of her income during the period the  parties lived as man and wife. 

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS