Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court reconsidered maintenance, enhanced the wife’s monthly support to Rs.30,000 and the children’s to Rs.1,50,000 total, and held PF/ESPP deductions are not compulsory.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reduction and restored the Family Court order awarding Rs.1,75,000 per month as interim maintenance because the High Court erred in considering only two sources of the respondent's income and overlooked other income streams, the respondent's possession of properties and a school, and the appellant's sacrifice of employment and entitlement to the same standard of living during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court set aside the High Courts cryptic order reducing maintenance because the record did not show compliance with the Rajnesh judgments requirement of affidavits of disclosure and because the High Courts order lacked reasons; the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the Rajnesh guidelines.
Source excerpt
There being concurrent findings of cruelty and desertion by the Family Court and High Court and given that the parties have been living separately since May 2011 and the respondent has remarried, the Supreme Court, exercising powers under Article 142, declined to interfere with the decree dissolving the marriage; however the respondent remains liable to maintain the minor son and was directed to pay Rs.50,000 per month from December 2019, with specified directions for payment of arrears and deduction from the respondent's salary by Army Authorities.
Source excerpt
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act does not affect or restrict the independent right of minor children of divorced Muslim parents to claim maintenance from their father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves, and for daughters, until marriage.
Source excerpt
The court held that payment of a minuscule Mahar and Iddat dues does not comply with Section 127(3)(b) CrPC; maintenance liability continues unless the sum paid upon divorce is reasonable and sufficient to maintain the ex-wife, in accordance with the legislative purpose of preventing destitution. The binding precedent of Bai Tahira applies, and the High Court erred in distinguishing that decision.
Source excerpt
Explore more
