Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajesh Gupta Vs. Mohini Gupta

Rajesh Gupta vs Mohini Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 19, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089964

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Gupta

Advocate Shri. Vasant Danial

Respondent

Mohini Gupta

Excerpt

.....placed on record along with the impugned order argued that, the impugned petition has been filed for declaring the marriage to be abinitio void, because the respondent was a lady of mental disorder from the date of marriage but by concealing such fact, she was married with the petitioner so in such premises, even in pendency of the impugned case, the respondent-wife is not entitled to get any interim alimony as awarded by the trial court but under the wrong premises the impugned order has been passed and prayed for dismissal of the application of the respondent by setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition. keeping in view his arguments, i have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record. it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of the trial court so, on this count the same could not be interfered by this court. even otherwise for the sake of argument, if the case is examined on merits then it is apparent that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and for some time they were residing together and on account of their matrimonial dispute, they are residing separately. the interim alimony is always granted to the spouse to live the life and contest the matter conveniently and if such alimony is not granted to the spouse, who is not having any source of income, then such person like respondent herein could not alive to see the fate of the matter. so, in such premises also, the trial court has not committed any error in allowing the application of the respondent. so far as the question of quantum is concerned, looking to the price index of the food stuffs and other necessary domestic things in the market, rs.5,000/- per month, could not be said to be higher side. so, in such count also, the impugned order does not require any interference. consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. however,.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.15420/13 19.09.2013 Shri Vasant Danial, learned counsel for the petitioner.

He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner/plaintiff/husband, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2013, passed by IInd Additional District Judge Mandla, in Hindu Marriage case No.11/12, whereby in a proceedings of the plaintiff filed under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act, the application of the respondent/wife filed under Section 24 of the same Act, has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month, as interim alimony till disposal of the suit.

Petitioner’s counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record along with the impugned order argued that, the impugned petition has been filed for declaring the marriage to be abinitio void, because the respondent was a lady of mental disorder from the date of marriage but by concealing such fact, she was married with the petitioner so in such premises, even in pendency of the impugned case, the respondent-wife is not entitled to get any interim alimony as awarded by the trial Court but under the wrong premises the impugned order has been passed and prayed for dismissal of the application of the respondent by setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition.

Keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record.

It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of the trial Court so, on this count the same could not be interfered by this Court.

Even otherwise for the sake of argument, if the case is examined on merits then it is apparent that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and for some time they were residing together and on account of their matrimonial dispute, they are residing separately.

The interim alimony is always granted to the spouse to live the life and contest the matter conveniently and if such alimony is not granted to the spouse, who is not having any source of income, then such person like respondent herein could not alive to see the fate of the matter.

So, in such premises also, the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application of the respondent.

So far as the question of quantum is concerned, looking to the price index of the food stuffs and other necessary domestic things in the market, Rs.5,000/- per month, could not be said to be higher side.

So, in such count also, the impugned order does not require any interference.

Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.

However, in the available circumstances, considering the oral prayer of the petitioner’s counsel, the trial Court is directed to take an endeavour to expedite the trial of the impugned case and conclude the same within six months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order by the petitioner in such Court.

There shall be no order as to the costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial