judgements needed

Citations for the judgement in the following scenario

1. No interim maintenance u/s 24 HMA or its ok to pay half maintenance if :

1. perjury filed against for showing falsely lower salary to get high maintenance
2. if revision appeal lying in high court
3. if opposing visitation of minor child to father
4. if delaying production of evidence

(Except 1 above, none are the de-facto grounds for stopping the maint payment just like that ........ On point 1 above, perjury should be proved first ! OR RATHER wife should have first obtained the sec 24 order in her favour by showing a lower salary intentionally.

Crime of purjury and damage due to it should occur first!!

On point 1 above one may get the stay of execution if maint is ordered, by paying some secutiry amount! or if not taken any security then reason be recorded.)

2. No striking off of defence of husband if :

1. revision appeal lying in high court for 24 HMA  and paying half of the maintenance amount
2. perjury filed against wife for showing falsely lower salary to get high maintenance
3. denying/opposing visitation of minor child to father
4. wife delaying production of evidence
5. husband willing to deposit maintenance amount in a separate account or in lower court to be released to wife after final disposal of  revision appeal in high court

(No ................ A to E are not direct grounds !!)

(On point 1 above OR if husband is a bankrupt then ......Husband may get the stay of execution of interim maint.

If stay is granted  ....OR untill previously granted stay is not vacated OR ......... OR untill husband is given a substantial chancec to pay-up arrears after previously granted stay is vacated,................ his defense is NOT striked off.)

husband is a bankrupt and devoid of any assets et c.............. then exactly stay is NOT granted(I correct my above posting)  .... but his defense is not striked off  Court may give him some more time if changed circumstances are brought to notice of the court and court is satisfie with facts........... (sec 51 of CPC is similar) It would not serve to punish defendent if he is a genine case and not hiding assets/concealing anything while committing default .

 But above scenario is rare ( and husbands should invite more trouble by falsely pleading bankrupcy!! it will create new major issues!!!!!! Its like signing one's own death sentence.)

But it hasn't occured ever .... Probably in RCR................ it may have a case citation that ...even husband was nomadic and had nothing to lose! ........................ and to enforce RCR, there was nothing worth to bring under attachment of property!!!

yet another mistake by me ...........

husbands should not invite more trouble .............