"EVERY SUFFERER IS A SAVIOUR"

"EVERY SUFFERER IS A SAVIOUR"
ESIS "A STEP TO FREE INNOCENT INDIANS FROM BIASED LAWS", JUST CLICK THE LINKS AS BELOW:

Every Sufferer Is A Saviour..

Showing posts with label Denial of Maintenance and alimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denial of Maintenance and alimony. Show all posts

Friday, 7 February 2014

List of More than 100 Judgements where Maintenance denied to wives..

Dear all victims as we all know that giving your hard earn money to your cruel,greedy & capable to earn wives is something like giving a forced charity  to an untrusted organization so called as your dead marriage.

 

So,here Iam pasting all the related major judgements which I got through official website of Advocate Seema Dhavale--- I salute you mam for your work & your website. It is of immense help & support to all victims where maintenance been denied to these cruel and greedy wives to give innocent husbands a sought of relief indeed.



 

 
 
RELIEF GIVEN TO VICTIMS WHERE MAINTENANCE DENIED TO THEIR CRUEL & GREEDY WIVES

 
 
 
 
1.  MUMBAI HIGH COURT  :  Dated 4 Feb 2005

2.  MUMBAI HIGH COURT  : Dated Apr 2008.

3.  CHENNAI HIGH COURT  : Dated 21 June 2002

4.  CHENNAI HIGH COURT  : Dated 21 Feb 2003

5.  MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT : Dated 24 March 2000

6. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 28 July 2008

7. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 22 Feb 2008

8. SUPREME COURT  : Dated 23 March, 2009

9. HIGH COURT OF P & H

10. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

11. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated 22 February, 2008

12. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Madhuri Bai vs Minor Surendra Kumar And Anr. on 24 April, 1998

13. MADRAS HIGH COURT: S.Chandra vs C.V.Sridharan on 21 February 2007

14. DELHI HIGH COURT: Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 27 August, 2010
15. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Ines Miranda vs Santosh K Swamy dated 14 december 2010
16. MUMBAI HIGH COURT : Dated  17 July, 1991
17. DELHI COURT : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI
18. BOMBAY HIGH COURT :  Dated 14 March 2011
19. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI: Dated  15 April 2011
20. PUNJAB - HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated  17 February 2011
 
21. DELHI HIGH COURT

22.  HIGH COURT OF P & H :  Dated 28 July 1961

23. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 1 September, 2010

24.  DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 30 August, 2010

25. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July, 2010
26.  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  11 June, 1993

27. MUMBAI HIGH COURT :  Dated  18 July, 2009

28. MUMBAI HIGH COURT
29. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 2010
30. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 18 November 2010
31. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated 29 August 1991
32. PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated 25 January, 2010
33. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 7 September 2006

34. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated 16 November 2004

35. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: Dated 22 September, 1992

36. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
37. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: Dated  15 September, 2004
38. GAUHATI HIGH COURT: Dated  23 April, 2004
39. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  9 March, 2010
40. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 
61. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  25 October, 2010
62. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated  25 March, 1976
63. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 13 February, 1980
64. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated  22 August, 2005
65. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI : Dated  18 Nov 2010

66. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI : Dated 24 March 2008
67. FAMILY COURT , HYDERABAD
68. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated  17 April 2007
69. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  11 January, 2011
70. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 17 February, 2006
71. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 28 April, 2005
72. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  21 November, 2006
73. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 25 January, 2006
74. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 6 February, 2006
75. KERALA HIGH COURT : Dated  December, 2010
76. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
77. UTTARANCHAl HIGH COURT : Dated  17 March, 2011
78. MUMBAI HIGH COURT :Dated  13 September, 1995

79. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  9 October, 1985


Some More useful Judgements:

 
 
81. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  16 February, 2000
82. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  27 March, 2007
83.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  17 October, 1974
84. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  31 January, 2003
85. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  18 September, 2008
86. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  30 September, 2008
87. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  28 March, 2000
88. GUJRAT HIGH COURT : Dated on 21 October 2010
89. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  12 October, 2009
90. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  28 October, 2010
91. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  4 October, 2010
92. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  20 September, 2010
93. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  8 February, 2010
94. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  7 January, 2010
95. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated  15 November, 1995
96. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

97. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated  31 March, 1989
98. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  6 December, 2005
99. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  28 February, 2007

100. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  2 March 2000
 
101. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  03 December 2009
102. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  28 April 2009
103. HIGH COURT OF STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH : Dated 13 March 2009
104. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 23 February, 2009
105. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July, 2010
106. CHATTISGARAH HIGH COURT : Dated 15 February, 2004
107. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT: Dated 22 January, 1999
108. BOMBAY HIGH COURT : Dated 26 February, 2010

109. GUJARAT HIGH COURT : Dated 9 February, 2011
110. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July 2011
111. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 27 November 2007
112. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE DELHI : Dated 28th August 2010
113. CHENNAI HIGH COURT : Dated 26th August 2010
114. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 19 January, 2010
115. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 18 August, 2010
116. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 15 March, 2001
117. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 09 Janurary 2003
118. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 14 November, 1994
119. GUJARAT HIGH COURT  : Dated 18 August, 2010
120. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 1 December, 2010
 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 3 January 2014

10 Best Way to reduce/Dismiss Maintenace/Interim Maintenance Amount....

Dear friends and victims of  Biased Law.Following are the 10 Best way to reduce or eliminate The maintenance/Interim maintenance from your shoulder.If all the tips and Points are used actively before or during the procedure then certainly you are going to save your hard earned money from forced charity so called as maintenance to your wicked wife who is willingly made as a parasite with the help of Biased Law.

1. Always initiate yourself first in showing the proof of income as this will show your honest approach of husband and literally it will save the litigation tenure.
2. The procedure of court are very slow.So,better to follow due diligence approach and take as active participant till the finalization of any interim order to again show yourself as a bonafide husband.
3. Always pretend that you have done everything to call back your wife but it was she who dumped you without any reason or you have tried everything to sort out but her cruelties gone to next level.For this you can use any of her email,sms,letters,chats or any audio/video,photos which are admissible in court as documentary evidences.This will again show that you were a responsible as well as caring husband to retain the conjugal life.In this particular scenario she will not get any penny if she has deserted you without any reason.
4. During Marital dispute every husband and wife may get chance of mediation through court.So,it's better to negotiate the amount and amicably settle it down.This will not only decrease the litigation cost in terms of lawyers fee in pendancy of cases but also saves your precious time.
5. During Maintenance fight on the court floor always have a solid argument in terms of wife's capability to earn herself. Always produce the  current statistics of Job and it's remuneration that one would have got on such degree if she would have tried for job instead of simply sitting idle as a parasite for the sake of maintenance.Also add credentials of her prior work experiences if any. This will not only reduce the maintenance amount but also give an added advantage in deciding the final alimony.

6. If wife is working and enjoying her salary then she is not entitled for any maintenance.As maintenance to wife is treated as survival money and not as luxary amount taken from husband in spite of her income.So,Don't miss any chance to collect her job details through RTI if she is working in Govt/PSU sector.If working in private then you could personally indulge to get her income details with the help of any detective agency or through her friends,neighbors,relatives or lastly appointing a court commissionaire to collect the information.


7. When fight for maintenance starts then don't prolong such fights as in such case husbands are only looser in terms of paying Lawyers fee,litigation fee an then interim maintenance which could ordered from date of filling or from date of order which depends on the magistrates discretion in the most of the cases.So,never ever light the maintenance cases for so long. Always try to end actively to shorten your burden in terms every month maintenance till the closure of litigation.
8. If wife has been indulged in infidelity or adultery and you are having a stringent proof against her then she will not get any penny but you will get a neat and clean divorce on such ground from her even without final alimony.In this case you will win your GWA case too.


9.  Generally maintenance is fixed as 1/3 of Husbands intake income. So,better increase your liability through expenses on monthly investments like EPF,GPF,VPF,Life Insurance,Medical insurance, or long term investments on the name of your parents to just minimize the maintenance amounts and on these investments she can't claim any stake further by any means in your life time and even after your death if you have not nominated her.


10. If any husband is sniffing the ditch from her wife or knowing that her wife will definitely file false cases of dowry,violence or maintenance cases  then simply open an A/C on her name with her nod much before her intention comes into action.And every month put some monthly amount in her A/c to show that you are a bonafide customer as a husband. This deposit will definitely show a critical approach in deciding the maintenance/Interim maintenance.
Written & Posted by ESIS


You may be also Interested to Read the Below, Just Have a click:

10 BEST WAY TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM 498A,DVA,DP-3&4,MAINETNANCE CASES AND 406 IPC


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Permanent alimony cancelled by court...



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2002
WITH
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2007.
Arun Kashinath Deshpande…. ….. …. Appellant.
V/s
Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo …. ….. …. Respondent.
Mr.Prasad Kulkarni i/by Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. For the appellant.
Ms.Shilpa A. Joshi, Adv. For the respondent.
CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE AND SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.
8th April, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Deshpande, J.)
Both these appeals question the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Family Court and the parties being common the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The family court as well has disposed of P.A.No.77/01 and MA No.7/01 by common judgment.
Family Court Appeal No.116/02 is filed by the husband whereas Family Court Appeal No.47/07 is filed by the wife. Parties to these appeals would be referred to as the husband and wife.

2. Marriage between the parties took place on 27.9.1984. The husband filed petition for divorce against the respondent being PA No.431/90 in the family court at Pune on the ground of cruelty. Family court passed decree of divorce in favour of the husband on 5.8.91. While passing decree of divorce the family court granted permanent alimony to the wife at the rate of Rs.600/­ per month by exercising discretionary powers under section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife thereafter filed PA No.764/1995 for enhancement of quantum of permanent alimony and the court vide its order dated 30.6.96 enhanced the amount of permanent alimony from Rs.600/­ per month to Rs.800/­ per month. At a later point of time the husband filed FA No.77/01 for cancellation of permanent alimony awarded to the wife in PA No.431/90 which was enhanced in PA No.764/95. The main ground on which the husband moved the petition for cancellation of permanent alimony was that the wife had suppressed her income and had obtained the order of permanent alimony by misrepresenting the court that she has no source of income. In Petition No.77/01 the husband has averred that the wife has been carrying on business since long. It is also claimed that she has a shop of her own wherein she is carrying on business. She also has STD booth in her name at Nashik and has also share in the properties situated at Nashik. On the said pleadings it was emphasized that as an order of permanent alimony was obtained by misrepresentation the order be cancelled. Besides filing the said petition for cancellation of permanent alimony the husband also filed MA No.7/01 requesting the court to take action against the wife by lodging a complaint for the offences under sections 193, 182, 196, 199, 200 and 201 of IPC, as the respondent wife had given false evidence before the court in earlier proceedings. The family court decreed FA No.77/01 and thereby cancelled the order of grant of permanent alimony from the date of filing of petition. The incidental relief claimed by the husband which is in the nature of direction for return of amount of maintenance paid by the husband to the wife came to be rejected. The court also rejected the MA No.7/01 for taking action against the respondent wife for leading false evidence before the Court. Dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the family court in refusing to issue direction to respondent wife to return the amount of maintenance paid earlier and aggrieved by refusal to take action against the respondent wife for having led false evidence before the court the husband has filed the FCA No.116/02 whereas the wife being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by family court cancelling the permanent alimony has filed FCA No.47/07. It is relevant to note that the wife has filed the appeal as late as in the year 2007 whereas the appeal filed by the husband is of the year 2002. Thus the questions for determination which arises in these appeals are (i) as to whether the family court is justified in cancelling the order of grant of permanent alimony and in refusing to issue direction against the wife to return the amount of maintenance already received? (ii) Is the court justified in rejecting the request made by the husband to take action against the respondent wife for leading false evidence? The appellant husband has examined in all five witnesses out of which witness Abhijit Bhalchandra Dakwe is the key witness and his evidence has been considered by the trial court in great details. The said witness is examined with a view to establish the fact that the respondent wife carries on business in a shop located in front of Nigdi bus stop at Bombay Pune road. This witness has visited the shop and has seen the respondent wife working therein. He has also made some purchases from the shop and receipts are passed in acknowledgment of having received the amount towards the goods sold by the respondent wife. Besides the oral evidence of Abhijit recorded at Ex.66 other important documents are at Exs.37, 38 and 39. Ex.37 is an application made by the respondent wife to the Pimpri Chinchwad municipal corporation with view to seek allotment of shop admeasuring 20 x 25 sq. ft. The said application is stated to have been submitted by the respondent wife in the presence of witness Abhijit. A format is annexed to the application which is at Ex.38 and Ex.39 is an affidavit accompanying the application at Ex.37. All the three documents i.e. the application, format and the affidavit constitute a proposal submitted by the respondent wife with a view to obtain shop premises from the corporation. The wife had initially denied the execution of the said documents which not only bear the signature of the respondent wife but also a photograph of the respondent is affixed thereon. The said three documents which have bearing on the question involved in these appeals are written in the hand writing of the respondent wife.
As stated herein above though the respondent has denied the writing and the execution of these documents, she was thoroughly cross examined touching the said documents by the advocate for the appellant. From the answers given by the respondent wife to the questions put in searching cross examination by advocate for the husband it can be seen that she has tried to contend that she is not sure as to whether the writing and the signature on the said documents belong to her. The court on comparison of the signatures which could be said to be disputed signatures at Exs.37 to 39 with admitted signatures of the respondent wife has come to a definite conclusion that the writings so also the signature on Exs.37 to 39 are that of the respondent 4 wife. The family court has also obtained specimen of writing and signature of the respondent wife and after comparing the same with the admitted writing and signature has reached the definite conclusion that the said three documents are executed by the respondent wife herself. What is stated by the applicant in the application and the affidavit is that she is educated woman industrialist and has past experience of running an industry so also experience of service rendered prior in point of o time. Touching her income and the sources from which she is receiving the same it is categorically mentioned that she owns one Laxmi Store from which monthly income is Rs.1200 to 1500/­.
It is then stated that she owns a STD booth/general store at Nashik under the name of Vasundhara Enterprises from which she is earning income of Rs. 4000 to 5000. The business place is stated to be owned by her. It is also stated that from typing business she earns more than Rs. 2500/­.
Other particulars are also furnished by the respondent wife such as estimated initial capital to be invested in the premises proposed to be taken on lease from the Corporation and the expected income from the said business. If the statements made in the affidavit are taken to be true and correct then definitely the Respondent wife has suppressed material facts while obtaining an order of permanent alimony. Nondisclosure of relevant facts and suppression of material facts have induced the family court to award permanent alimony of Rs.600/­ on 5.8.91 so also enhancing to Rs.800/­ per month in the year 1995. The trial court being of the view that the respondent wife has deliberately suppressed her income and thus obtained an order from the court by misrepresentation has proceeded to cancel the grant of permanent alimony with effect from the date of filing of the petition by the husband. We have perused the judgment and order passed by family court under section 25(2) of the act. We do not see any reason to interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the family court touching the income of the respondent wife.
The view taken is very much possible view. It does not call for any interference.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant husband has submitted that the family court ought to have issued necessary direction against the respondent wife to for return of the amount received by her towards maintenance. The amount received is trivial sum of Rs. 600/­ per month from the year 1991 to 1995 and thereafter to Rs. 800/­ from 1995 onwards. The respondent wife was neither granted nor has she received any huge amount which necessitates directing recovery of that amount, more so, having regard to the fact that the parties were husband and wife by relation. It is then submitted that the Court ought to have taken action against the respondent for having led false evidence. The trial court has taken a pragmatic view of the matter in not permitting scope of dispute being widened between the parties. There is no point in forcing the parties in further litigation that too of criminal nature. Though the wife has stated in the affidavit that she is earning a sum of Rs.4000 to 5000 per month by way of income it is hardly a substantial amount. In our considered view, the approach of the family court is just and reasonable. Hence no interference is called for. In the result both the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to mention that interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)