TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Maintenance upheld based on neglect, not second marriage. Court clarifies key criterion for granting maintenance.</h1> The High Court upheld the maintenance award to the wife, Soma Devi, based on the husband's neglect, not solely on the husband's second marriage. The court ... - Issues:Maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on neglect or refusal by the husband, the impact of the husband contracting a second marriage on the wife's right to maintenance.Analysis:The case involved a revision petition against the order of a Magistrate awarding maintenance to the wife, Soma Devi, based on her husband's alleged neglect and subsequent second marriage. The husband denied maltreatment, and the Magistrate found insufficient proof of maltreatment but ordered maintenance due to the husband's second marriage. The Additional Sessions Judge recommended dismissal, stating that a second marriage alone does not prove neglect. The High Court analyzed the obligation of a husband to maintain his wife after she leaves him and he contracts a second marriage.Under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a husband may be ordered to provide maintenance if he neglects or refuses to do so, with a second marriage considered a just ground for the wife's refusal to live with him. However, the mere act of contracting a second marriage does not automatically entitle the wife to maintenance if there is no neglect or refusal to maintain her. The key criterion for granting maintenance is the husband's neglect or refusal despite having sufficient means.The court emphasized that neglect implies a culpable omission, while refusal is a deliberate act of denial. The husband must be shown to have neglected or refused to maintain the wife for a maintenance order to be justified. The court highlighted that the contracting of a second marriage alone is not sufficient grounds for claiming maintenance if there is no other neglect or refusal by the husband.The court observed that the Magistrate had not fully considered all circumstances, focusing on the allegations of assault and expulsion rather than neglect or refusal to maintain. Despite disbelieving the assault claim, other evidence indicated neglect by the husband. The court clarified that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife persists even if she voluntarily leaves, as long as she does not commit adultery. The husband cannot impose a condition of living together after contracting a second marriage.In conclusion, the High Court agreed with the maintenance award to Soma Devi but for different reasons than the Magistrate. The court found evidence of neglect by the husband, justifying the maintenance order, although not solely based on the alleged assault and expulsion. The court upheld the maintenance allowance of Rs. 12 per month to Soma Devi from the date of the Magistrate's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
