Skip to main content

11 Factors to be considered by the Court while awarding interim Maintenance

Delhi High Court has recently re-iterated the factors to be considered by the Court while deciding an application for interim Maintenance. A Division Bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani has observed that the object behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide for maintenance, pendente-lite, to a spouse in matrimonial proceedings so that during the pendency of the proceedings the spouse can maintain herself/himself and also have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of fund.

The Bench has also re-iterated the following factors to be considered by the Court, while awarding the amount, as held by High Court in Sh.Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt.Saroj Hegde

1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded Under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded Under Section 24 of the Act.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/11-factors-considered-court-awarding-interim-maintenance/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Implanting contact lens inside the eye is surgery - Consumer forum

An insurance company denied the claim of an insured whose son had undergone surgery in both eyes to save his constantly deteriorating vision. The company denied the responsibility saying the surgery was not a medical procedure but cosmetic in nature. The Consumer Forum, however, thought differently. The company has been directed by the Central District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pay Rs.1.11 lakh to the complainant who spent the same amount on the ICL implantation of his son, who was diagnosed with pathological myopia in which the vision is lost gradually. The complainant, Rajan Malhotra, had insurance with the New India Assurance Company. When he sought a refund of the claim, the company denied the same saying the surgery was a cosmetic procedure and was, therefore, not covered in the policy. Before the forum also, it maintained that the claim was not payable and rightly rejected. It also said that the claim of Mr. Malhotra had been put before a medical board too whi
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more