The husband was accused of defaming the wife by making baseless and false accusations against her personality. Since October 1979, she had deserted deliberately and without justification. The wife was forced to leave her husband`s business and was forced to live in her parents` house in Reasi against her will due to her husband`s forced circumstances. The defendant had been persuaded by the woman`s father to move in with him in Reasi, but despite the father`s efforts, the husband had not changed his attitude towards his wife. The applicant challenged the judge`s order to order additional sessions in the Supreme Court of Gujarat, and Judge Akil Qureshi found that the judge could not have paid maintenance until valid reasons were given. The judge of the additional sessions did not err in setting aside the order of the competent judge to award maintenance to the applicant. The wife`s application was therefore rejected by the High Court. 8. Mr Kothari, representing the respondent, relied in support of his allegations on the conclusion in Vanmala vs. H.M.Rangnatha Bhatta, reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 299, that a divorced woman who has not remarried is entitled to maintenance. The observation in the abovementioned case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In the instant case the applicant submitted that divorce crwp724-16.odt had been granted by the civil court for adultery and that, consequently, the defendant`s wife was not entitled to maintenance under the provisions of Article 125 § ۴ and 5. Support should be based on a person`s actual income and not on whether they are able to work. In India, employment is not guaranteed. The only guarantee of employment is the national guarantee scheme, which is granted to a rural unemployed person. The husband is not entitled to do so in this case. In addition, the woman is just as effective. The respondent was unemployed and suffered from a number of complaints. The complainant was employed as an assistant professor of biology and received a monthly salary of Rs 50,000.
She needed only a third to cover her expenses. She was able to provide 15,000 rupees a month to her husband, who was unable to support himself due to a lack of reliable source of income. Accordingly, he applied to the Kerala High Court for the complainant to be ordered to pay Rs 15,000 per month for light maintenance pending and Rs 3 lakh for court costs. 9. The woman must know that she is unable to support them. No alimony to allow the wife who left her husband. (Karnataka High Court), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, Order of 13.02.1980, Haunsabai v.
Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. reference No. 1981 Cree LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158. However, the wife filed for divorce under section 13 (1) (i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Subsequently, she filed an application under section 24 of the Act, demanding 2 rupees lakh as alimony for the husband and 11 rupees lakh for the treatment of the daughter. The husband said the wife had already withdrawn 56 lakh rupees from the joint account. He said the woman had enough money to maintain her expenses and standard of living. The learned judge, without calling the wife to explain the investment of these 56 rupees lakh, ordered the husband to pay alimony of 20,000 rupees per month to the wife. The judge cannot order a warrant of arrest that cannot be released on bail for non-payment of maintenance, as in the present case. It is clarified that the magistrate may only bring an action against the applicant or another defendant for non-payment of provisional maintenance in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence and that such an order cannot be enforced, as the competent judge has done. In these circumstances, the arrest warrant issued by an arrest warrant without bail can only be revoked. In general, maintenance is “support or subsistence”.
In the laws of any religious community governing marriage, there is no notion of “alimony”. However, the right to claim maintenance is based on the assumption that the applicant does not have the means to support himself. “Maintenance” usually pays for the cost of essentials or the need for food materials. However, this is not only a question of the applicant`s right to survival, but also of the husband`s or wife`s ability to work, their behaviour and other considerations that are taken into account by the court when deciding on the amount of maintenance. The 2017 Nivya V M v Shivaprasad M K case, which appeared before the Supreme Court of Kerala, involved the woman being ordered to pay her husband 6,000 rupees a month in alimony for ruining her career by bringing a false rape charge against him in a family court. After considering the evidence presented by the parties, the trial court concluded that the wife had proved the problems of cruelty and abandonment and eventually ordered the adoption of a divorce order under section 13 of the 1955 Act. The present appeal was brought before the High Court after the wife had been aggrieved by the judgment and judgment of the trial court on various grounds, including the failure of the trial court to properly assess the evidence presented in the case and the issues raised had not been proved in her favour. It is further asserted that, even if the charge of cruelty and abandonment had been proven, no decree could have been issued in favour of the wife because, according to her husband, she had approved of the atrocities and desertions of which she had complained in the petition.