Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors -01/02/2022

where a widow gets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of s. 14(1) she would get absolute interest. in the property.


English law an action cannot be maintained against a third person on the ground that he was a mover of, and had an interest in the suit, in the absence of malice and want of probable cause. Consequently, if that law governs, the second ground on which it is sought to support the present action fails. And if the law administered in the Mofussil is to be resorted to, the absence of all precedent in a case of such common occurrence affords an irresistible presumption that no such action is maintainable there. In answer to the suggestion that if no precedent exists, it should now be made, it has been already pointed out that where there is neither privity of some kind nor a wrong, the principle upon which actions are ordinarily sustained is wanting.

পিতা-মাতার ভরণ-পোষণ আইন ২০১৩- Pita Matar Bharan Poshan Aain-2013

পিতা-মাতার ভরণ-পোষণ না করিবার দণ্ড-কোন সন্তান কর্তৃক ধারা ৩ এর যে কোন উপ-ধারার বিধান কিংবা ধারা ৪ এর বিধান লংঘন অপরাধ বলিয়া গণ্য হইবে এবং উক্ত অপরাধের জন্য অনূর্ধ্ব ১ (এক) লক্ষ টাকা অর্থদণ্ডে দণ্ডিত হইবে; বা উক্ত অর্থদণ্ড অনাদায়ের ক্ষেত্রে অনূর্ধ্ব ৩ (তিন) মাস কারাদণ্ডে দণ্ডিত হইবে।

Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.

The amount awarded u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance is adjustable against the amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings- SC

In the case of Sudeep Chaudhary vs Radha Chaudhary - AIR 1999 SC 536, wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and was awarded the maintenance @ of Rs.350/- per month and was subsequently…

Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaharlal Dhawan- 11/06/1993.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- The court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simpliciter obtainable under one Act in proceedings under the other. As is evident, both the statutes are codified as such and are clear on their subjects and by liberality of interpretation interchangeability cannot be permitted so as to destroy the distinction on the subject of maintenance.


Before the Family Court, an application under Section 125, Cr.PC has been filed by the respondents for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed their affidavit in evidence and petitioner has been directed to cross-examine on the affidavit. At this stage, petitioner raised an objection in writing that in the proceedings, evidence can not be taken on affidavit, but the respondent should be examined in the Court in the presence of petitioner or his Counsel. Family Court relying on Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act found that the Family Court is having jurisdiction to adopt its own procedure for recording evidence and relying on provisions of Code of Civil Procedure held that the affidavit can be received in evidence and rejected the application of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.

Quantum of maintenance

Quantum of maintenance to wife-the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and son.