Latest news with #ArindamSinha
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Wife's Past Marital Status Irrelevant To Interim Maintenance Claim: Allahabad High Court
Last Updated: The observation came in a case where a woman challenged a family court decision denying her interim maintenance on the ground that she had concealed details of her earlier marriage The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the veracity of a woman's past marital status need not be examined while deciding her application for maintenance during litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The observation came in a case where a woman challenged a family court's decision denying her interim maintenance on the ground that she had concealed details of her earlier marriage. The family court had found that her previous marriage had ended only in April 2024, whereas she had remarried in February 2021, allegedly in violation of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act which bars bigamy. However, a division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held that such factual determinations regarding her previous husband were unnecessary for adjudicating the interim maintenance plea. The high court emphasised that the sole consideration under Section 24 is whether the applicant lacks sufficient income to support herself and bear litigation costs. 'For purpose of adjudicating the appeal, it is not necessary for us to find on other facts regarding allegation of appellant that there was separation from her first husband… This is because section 24 provides for a spouse to have maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings," the bench noted. The husband, who worked in the police, argued that the marriage was void due to concealment and relied on 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur to argue that conduct matters in deciding maintenance. His counsel also claimed that the woman had falsely stated she was employed in the Income Tax department. The high court, however, found that there was no evidence on record to prove the woman was earning or had financial means. On the contrary, it noted that she had moved to live with the respondent in Kanpur after the marriage, and was now residing at her original address in Jhansi. The high court observed that allegations of deceit, even if ultimately proven, do not override the financial necessity that Section 24 seeks to address. Setting aside the family court's order, the bench directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 15,000 per month to the appellant from the date of her application, April 15, 2025. Arrears were also ordered to be cleared by June 14, 2025, and monthly payments will continue by the 7th of each subsequent month. The court also urged the family court to expedite the main matrimonial case without delay, while cautioning the wife against seeking adjournments. First Published: June 09, 2025, 15:26 IST
News18
02-06-2025
- Business
- News18
Section 27 Of Hindu Marriage Act Not Meant For Standalone Streedhan Claims: Allahabad HC
Last Updated: The division bench was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the family court's order directing him to pay Rs 10,54,364 to his former wife in lieu of streedhan articles. The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a family court order that directed a man to pay over Rs 10 lakh to his ex-wife as compensation for her 'streedhan,' holding that such a claim cannot be independently made by way of an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The division bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Avnish Saxena was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the family court's March 2022 order directing him to pay Rs 10,54,364 to his former wife in lieu of streedhan articles. The high court found the order legally unsustainable as it was based on an independent application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows courts to make provisions regarding joint property presented at or around the time of marriage within a decree passed in matrimonial proceedings. However, in this case, the high court noted that the streedhan order was passed separately and not incorporated into the decree dissolving the marriage on May 1, 2023. Court referred to a 2017 judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Babita @ Gayatri v. Mod Prasad @ Pintu), which clarified that Section 27 cannot be invoked through a standalone application. 'The provision has been made with an intent to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to entitle the wife to move application for return of Streedhan properties in the same proceedings, in which a matrimonial dispute has been brought to the Court for adjudication," the Chhattisgarh High Court had noted. The Allahabad High Court agreed with this view that Section 27 has not been considered to be a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding so as to entitle the court to entertain such independent application. It also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam (1997) where it was said that Section 27 provides alternative remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property, which is covered by the Section. 'Accordingly, we hold, return of ' streedhan ' has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27," the high court opined. Regarding the present case, the bench questioned the family court's reliance on photocopied jewellery receipts submitted by the ex-wife. There was no explanation as to why the secondary evidence was accepted, nor any direct proof that the man had custody of the jewellery in question. Furthermore, court noted that the ex-wife had admitted during cross-examination that the man was in Bombay at the time of the alleged incident in 2014, when she claimed he forcibly took her jewellery and threw her out of the house. The high court also addressed the financial aspect of the case. The man had already paid Rs 7 lakh and the ex-wife had also recovered Rs 2.1 lakh via partial execution of the earlier order. The bench ruled that these payments may be adjusted against any valid maintenance claim under a 2017 CrPC order, but could not sustain the streedhan decree. While dismissing the ex-wife's arguments that the appeal should be barred due to an unsuccessful review attempt and lack of challenge to execution proceedings, the high court emphasized that appeals are a statutory right. Since the impugned order was without jurisdiction, the execution based on it must also be dropped, it ordered. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the family court judgment was quashed. The high court clarified that any future recovery must adhere strictly to the statutory framework. First Published: June 02, 2025, 15:43 IST
