Madhya Pradesh Court January 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Sushila Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC23; 1995MPLJ68
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In the matrimonial proceedings, the learned Judge of the Trial Court difected the husband to pay 1/2 of his salary as maintenance pendente lite to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act). The learned Counsel appearing for the husband in this revision submits that the rate of maintenance fixed is too high. The normal rate should have been 1/5 of the salary of the husband. Reliance is placed on Raghvendra Singh Chaudhary v. Seema Bai, 1988 M.P.L.J. 450, Radhikabai v. Sadhuram Awatrai 1969 M P L. j. 565 and Dharmichand v. Smt. Shobha Devi, AIR 1987 Raj. 159. The learned Counsel for the husband also submits that in fixing the rate of maintenance Court overlooked the relevant considerations that the husband has to maintain his aged parents and the wife has also some earning from bidi rolling done by her in the village.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife in reply submits that the right of maintenance has been fixed look...
Neelam Vs. Kailash Bajpai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC188
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The matrimonial Court in proceedings between the parties, had fixed the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month, to be paid by the husband to the wife. During the pendency of the case, he was suspended and was getting only suspension allowance. Taking into consideration this subsequent event the Matrimonial Court on his application, reduced the maintenance pendente lite to Rs. 225/-per month. It is against that order that the wife has preferred this revision.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife contends that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is no express power conferred on the Court to reduce the rate of maintenance pendente lite once fixed, The legal contention cannot be accepted. In the changed circumstances, the power has to be implied in the Court to reduce or chance the rate of maintenance, because maintenance to be paid is only during the proceedings. Such a power of variation of the rate of maintenance...
R.J. Fouzar Bus Service, Hoshangabad and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1994MP122; 1994(0)MPLJ324
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 3155/91 (Ramchandra Jhadwani v. State of M.P.), M.P. No. 2549/91 (Hariehand v. State), M.P, No. 2519/91 (Ramswarop Shrivastava v. State), M. P. No. 2476/91 (H.S. Dhanjal v. State), M.P. No. 2525/91 (District Transport Service v. State), M.P. No. 2827/91 (K. P. Pandey v. State), M.P. No. 1365/92 (Channulal Rai v. State), M.P. No. 2621/91 (Jageram Sharma v. State), M. P. No. 2520/91 (Kailesh Narayan Rai v. State), M.P. NO. 2605/91 (Aisha Bai v. State), M.P. No. 2562/91 (Narsingh Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2679/91 (M/s. Chhanga Raja Bus Service v. State), M.P. No. 2493/91 (M/s. Raipur Bus Service v. State), M. P.No. 2583/91 (Pt. Lalaram Bajpai v. State), M.P. No. 2956/91 (Laxmansmgh v. State), M.P. No. 2211/91 (Dhannasingh v. State), M.P. No. 3683/91 (Ratanlal v. State), M.P. No. 2804/91 (Mansingh v. State), M. P. No. 3486/91 (Dineshchand Agnihotri v. State), M.P. No. 3205/91 (Jai Prakash Nara-yan Rai v. State)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›