Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAPPU RAM @ PREMSUKH versus SHIVARI @ NIRMALA

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PAPPU RAM @ PREMSUKH v SHIVARI @ NIRMALA - CW Case No. 5872 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 101 (13 January 2005)

S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.5872/2004

Pappu @ Pram Sukh vs

Shivari @ Nirmala

DATE OF ORDER : - 13.1.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. J.S.Choudhary, for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19th August, 2004 passed by the District Judge, Merta on application of the non- petitioner filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by which the trial court awarded maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month to the non- petitioner and further awarded Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non- petitioner is pursuing her petition, which was filed under Section 125

Cr.P.C. and as per the law the non-petitioner cannot get the maintenance both under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted that in case maintenance is awarded under both the provisions then the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is required to be set off from the impugned award passed by the civil court.

Admittedly, in this case, no maintenance has been awarded to the non-petitioner in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, at present there is no question of claiming of setting off of any amount from the amount as awarded by the civil court. In case any maintenance is awarded against the petitioner under Section 125

Cr.P.C. after considering the order of the civil court dated 19th August, 2004, the petitioner can move appropriate application for modification of the order in case, he is to pay double amount in two proceedings.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Prakash Tatia), J. c.p.goyal/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.