How to remove sec 125

If your wife has asked for maintenance under CrPC 125, here's your chance to learn everything about how to fight and deny or reduce maintenance under CrPC 125!

About the book

This is somewhat old judgment of Supreme Court, and it brings an important consideration which was overlooked by lower courts: Which was neglecting to consider monthly EMI paid by husband towards housing loan. The order reduced maintenance amount from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5,000 p.m.  While this may cause cheers to readers, it should be noted that the in-hand salary of husband is Rs 9,000 p.m, so effectively he has to now survive on Rs 4,000 p.m.  Somehow the facts of the case don’t add up for me.  There must be more to it than the numbers mentioned in the   …[Continue Reading]

Thanks to a reader, we have this very recent judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court which denied maintenance to wife under CrPC 125 on her appeal to HC since the court agreed with trial court’s observations that according to evidence led by husband and also wife’s own admissions, it was the wife who was not staying with him out of her own freewill. The judgment is actually not very significant, since both evidence by way of letters of husband and wife’s own admissions proved that there was no maltreatment, and in practical cases such evidence, and wife’s own admissions are   …[Continue Reading]

As per a recent Mumbai family court judgment, qualified wife has been denied maintenance.  While the news says about her being qualified and sitting idle, my suspicion is that the ex-husband had provided some proofs of her work.  Otherwise, it’s usually very difficult to get a zero maintenance order simply based on wife’s educational qualifications.  Since the case was followed after divorce, it must have been a CrPC 125 case because only that section allows cases to be filed even after divorce if the wife says that she cannot maintain herself.  The full judgment text has been found, and it   …[Continue Reading]

Woman can’t evict hubby just because she pays EMI: Mumbai Family Court MUMBAI: A family court on Monday rejected a wife’s interim plea seeking her estranged husband’s removal from their Lokhandwala flat where she stays with him and their child, just because she pays the EMI (equated monthly installment to repay home loan). The court, while ruling in favour of the man who pays Rs 90,000 a month for household expenses, said in the current day, it is difficult to ascertain who has contributed how much while purchasing any asset or discharging any liability. “If both contribute to the household,   …[Continue Reading]

The judgment asserts that there is no strict criterion that one-third of husband’s income has necessarily to be awarded as maintenance to wife. The judgment can be useful to know how judges may ascertain income of both parties based on declarations in affidavit, and some estimation of real income (because people just lie about income). Full judgment text below: Lalit Bhola vs Nidhi Bhola & Anr. on 12 February, 2013 Author: G.P. Mittal * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 30st January, 2013 Pronounced on: 12th February, 2013 + Crl.M.C.75/2012 LALIT BHOLA ….. Petitioner Through:   …[Continue Reading]

It is a short and sweet (depending on the ears) judgment which denies fresh application for maintenance under PWDVA (DV Act) when a previous maintenance under CrPC 125 is already decided.  Another crisp and clear judgment by justice S N Dhingra. Important part of judgment below: If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after  adjudication  maintenance  has  been  determined  by  a competent  court  either  in  Civil  Suit  or  by  Court  of  MM  in  an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the   …[Continue Reading]

In this case, wife initiated a fresh maintenance petition under CrPC 125 when a civil suit asking for maintenance was already pending, but it was stayed by Mumbai High court. Important parts of judgment below: 7. Mr. Vidwans, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that practically pleadings are identical and verbatim in both the cases. He took me through the pleadings of both cases and demonstrated that practically the paras are identical as much as they are in verbatim. Following paras of the application u/S. 125 of Cr.P.C. are identical to the paras of the plaintiff in Reg. Civil   …[Continue Reading]

There was a bit of cheer in the husbands’ camp lately with SC judgment saying that arrest in IPC section 498a (and offences with less than 7 years punishment) should strictly be done following CrPC 41 and 41A guidelines.  Well, as usually happens, such relief news is usually quickly followed by another judgment by higher courts which contain stern warnings and admonitions; lest the husbands become too happy and delirious and forget their role as protectors and providers to women and children! https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delay-in-maintenance-to-wife-violates-human-rights-SC/articleshow/38513545.cms “It is the sacrosanct duty to render financial support even if the husband is required to earn   …[Continue Reading]

This older Delhi High court judgment by Justice S N Dhingra is an important one which puts equality between men and women before the law on a sound footing.  It seems from the wording that the case involves asking for maintenance under one more section (probably HMA 24) while also getting it under CrPC 125. The judgment orders that she not sit idle on her MBBS qualification and do some honorary work while she is getting maintenance from husband. Full judgment below with important points in bold: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1153/2008 KAVITA PRASAD   …[Continue Reading]