interim maintenance given under Proviso (2) to section 125(1) is to prevent the
claimant from unnecessary financial sufferings till the final disposal of the
proceedings
IN HOW MUCH TIME THE APPLICATION FOR 'INTERIM MAINTENANCE” SHOULD BE DISPOSED OFF?
(60 days)
She has suppressed material facts from the court and is playing fraud on court as
well is playing fraud on opponent and she is not with clean hands, therefore she is
not entitled for relief of maintenance or any other reliefs. Person whose case is
based on falsehood can be throughout at any stage of the proceeding and has not any
right to seek any relief from the court.
Case laws on this point for support your argument:-
a) Supreme Court of India S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 853, 1994 SCC (1) 1.
b) Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side) Md. Ashiruddin & Anr vs State Of West Begal
& Anr on 25 March, 2008.
c) Supreme Court of India G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan & Anr on 5 March,
2008.
Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance. (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R.
Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki.
Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.
Unemployed man can not be forced to pay Maintenance Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. … Versus
The State & Anr. . LAND MARK SC JUDGEMENT ON INTERIM MAINTENANCE/MAINTENANCE 125
crpc June 25, 2013 In "Family Law"
Maintenance denied for working wife. (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S.
Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No.
(2002) 2 MLJ 760.
No maintenance to earning wife, only to children. (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K.
Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E.
Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.
No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC. (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam
J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR
2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.
No Maintenance if wife is working. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on
25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vi
Amardeep Dixit SIFF FC - INDORE (M.P), [08.07.19 14:57]
kas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.
Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself. (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B.
Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976
Cri LJ 1664.
petitioner has no liability and she is leading luxirous life as alleged.
petitioner, threatened to implicate in false criminal cases.
can take benefit of her own wrongs
she is educated,able bodied,can maintain herself
unclean hands - no relief -
she has sufficient means to maintain herself
she has made only misconceived,frivolous,fabricated one and accordingly not tenable
in the eyes of law vague statements and vague allegations against you and your
family without any details, events,dates and other face, you have grounds for the
defence of insufficient vague pleadings and allegations in future.
leave no stone unturned
How could she maintain herself for 42 years
before passing any order, court should consider any incident report or DIR report
It is disputed fact that petitioner and respondent are married
HEADLINE : FACTS DISPUTED BY RESPONDENT
Prima Face Case
house breaking lady
extremely irresponsible nature
Vexatious petition (maintainance denied)
father in law are not responsible for residence
proof that she is unable to maintain herself
frivilous petition claiming damages dismissed
no maintainance if wife lies
She committed series of cruelties towards the respondent and his family without any
legal justification
take undue advantage of law/courts and misuse the law to harass husband and compel
him to take extreme steps
women is not lawfully married not to be treated as wife and not entitled for
maintainance.
she have to proof her contentions as the onus lie on her
petitioner come with unclean hands, and has successfully failed to prove her case
in the eye of law based on uncorroborated evidence.
It is submitted that petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court with a pre-
planned, concocted, false, fabricated, vexatious, misconceived, motivated,
assertions, contents,
hence contentions, the present allegations petition is and not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed with heavy cost
The petitioner intentionally and deliberately conceled the said facts from this
Hon'ble court and the respondent reserves high right to initiate proceedings U/S
340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for giving false affidavit before this Hon'ble
Court
wife is not capable to take care of herself and pay her the money
If she has suppressing or hiding the facts or claiming falsely in the greed of
maintenance money, you can write in your supplementary petition that she has
committed perjury under CrPC 340 punishable under IPC 193.
20. PUNJAB - HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated 17 February 2011 Maintenance claim based on
Affidavit dismissed
