Best Advocate In Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Calcutta High Court on Impleadment of Third Parties in Specific Performance Suits A recent ju…

Supreme Court: Mother’s Income Does Not Automatically Halve Father’s Child Maintenance A significant observation by the Supreme Court of India in Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896. The mother was a qualified gynaecologist earning ₹1.5 lakh per month, while the father stated that he earned ₹2 lakh per month. The High Court reduced interim maintenance for the two daughters from ₹30,000 each to ₹15,000 each, reasoning that the responsibility of maintaining the children could not rest solely upon the father. The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s order of ₹30,000 per month for each daughter. The Court held that the fact that the mother earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability. An important observation was that the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.” The Court also recognised that the parent who looks after the children’s daily needs and upbringing makes a real contribution, even though such care cannot simply be measured in money. Key takeaway: Child maintenance is not determined merely by asking whether the mother is earning. The needs of the children and the circumstances and contributions of both parents remain relevant. #SupremeCourt #FamilyLaw #ChildMaintenance #Maintenance #MatrimonialLaw #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Supreme Court: Mother’s Income Does Not Automatically Halve Father’s Child Maintenance A sign…

Best Advocate in Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Can a Senior Citizen Evict a Son Under the Senior Citizens Act? A senior citizen may own a pro…

Supreme Court Clarifies: One Appeal or Two Against Suit and Counterclaim? The Supreme Court has held that where a suit and counterclaim are decided by a common judgment, a composite appeal can be filed against both. The appeal must separately set out the grounds challenging the suit decree and the counterclaim decree, and court fees must be paid according to the valuation of both. The ruling also clarifies that the position remains the same whether one decree or two decrees are drawn up. Basudev & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Supreme Court of India | 11 August 2026 A useful clarification for parties and advocates dealing with civil suits involving counterclaims. #SupremeCourt #CivilLaw #CPC #Counterclaim #LegalUpdate

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Supreme Court Clarifies: One Appeal or Two Against Suit and Counterclaim? The Supreme Court h…

Best Advocate in Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

📚 Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Can a Registered Sale Deed Become Invalid If the Ful…

Can Interim Maintenance Be Refused Before the Final Decision? Let’s understand with a simple example. A and B are husband and wife. Due to matrimonial disputes, B starts living separately and files an application seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In response, A files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC, alleging that B is living in adultery, and places photographs, videos, and other electronic evidence before the Court in support of that application. Question: Should the Court postpone deciding A’s application until the final disposal of the maintenance proceedings? The Supreme Court says—not necessarily. If the husband produces clear, cogent, and prima facie evidence establishing a statutory disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC, the Court can examine that issue at the intermediate stage itself. It is not required to defer the issue in every case until the final adjudication. However, mere allegations are not enough. If the evidence requires detailed examination or its authenticity is disputed, interim maintenance may continue until the Court decides the application under Section 125(4). The judgment also reiterates that: ✔ Electronic evidence must satisfy the legal requirements for admissibility. ✔ Unsupported allegations cannot defeat a maintenance claim. ✔ Courts must balance the social object of maintenance law with the statutory disqualifications provided by Parliament. Key Takeaway: Interim maintenance is intended to prevent destitution, but it is not an absolute right. Where a statutory bar under Section 125(4) CrPC is supported by clear and prima facie evidence, the Court may examine that issue before granting or continuing interim maintenance. Based on the Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 778). #SupremeCourt #MaintenanceLaw #Section125 #FamilyLaw #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw #EvidenceLaw #Litigation #Advocacy #ShriGanpatiJurists

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Best Advocate in Bathinda Best Advocate in Chandigarh Can Interim Maintenance Be Refused Before…

Load More
That is All