Best Divorce Lawyer in Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani, Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2024, decided on 04-09-2025

Patna High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging a final order of maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, a Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., while quashing and setting aside the maintenance order, held that the trial court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance.

Background The instant petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 24-05-2024, which directed him to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent met through a matrimonial site, and it was the respondent’s second marriage after her divorce. According to the petitioner, at the time of the dissolution of her first marriage, she had received a final settlement of Rs. 40 lakhs as alimony and had an independent source and sufficient means to maintain herself. Contentions The petitioner alleged that the respondent has a habit of duping young men to earn large sums of money through alimony or maintenance. The petitioner further contended that the respondent suppressed her previous marriage and swore an affidavit at the time of her marriage with the petitioner declaring herself to be unmarried, thus marrying him by fraud. It was also alleged that the respondent earns considerable interest per month from the alimony money and is academically qualified, having M.Sc. degree in Botany. She is also a diploma holder in Japanese language and can earn money not only for her livelihood but a decent sum to run a luxurious life. Further, the respondent refused to cohabit with the petitioner, abused his parents and is suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) leading to suicidal tendencies....

Decision The Court noted that in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court had held that maintenance claims require disclosure affidavits of assets and liabilities, balanced assessment of needs and quantum based on factors like parties’ status, reasonable need and income. The Court also noted that in Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder, (2003) 11 SCC 303, it was held that a wife who deserts her husband without sufficient reason or fails to prove cruelty is not entitled to maintenance. The Court observed that the respondent’s allegations of torture and dowry demand to lack specificity and credibility due to the unexplained 16-month delay in filing the complaint. The Court further considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, which stressed the importance of considering the wife’s income or earning capacity in determining the quantum of maintenance. The Court observed that the respondent, despite being qualified, claimed to have no income and suppressed the Rs. 40 lakhs alimony she received from her previous marriage in her marriage affidavit. The trial court’s disbelief in her claim of handing over the cash to the petitioner suggested she still retained the funds, which would enable her to be self-sufficient. The Court emphasized that the amount of maintenance fixed should be such that the wife can live in reasonable comfort but also that her own potential earnings and assets should be factored in. The Court referring to S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, noted that, “While Section 125 proceedings are summary, courts consider conduct and financial disclosures critically. If a wife conceals her actual income or alimony, it may disentitle her as the court relies on bona fide disclosures to decide maintenance amount.” The Court noted that Jaspreet Singh v. Gurleen Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 55, emphasized the importance of following best practices like furnishing affidavits of assets and liabilities to prevent parties from concealing their income and resources.

The Court observed that before passing a final order of maintenance courts are under statutory obligation to direct the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities. Only on due consideration of such affidavits of assets and liabilities, it will be possible for the courts to consider the status of the parties, their assets, respective needs, capability of earning and based on such documents, courts can come to a conclusive decision regarding amount of maintenance. In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court concluded that the maintenance order dated 24-05-2024 suffers from impropriety and illegality in overlooking suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance. The Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to re-adjudicate the matter by first directing both parties to file affidavits of their assets and liabilities and then pass a fresh judgment within four weeks.

Best divorce lawyer

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Transfer petition case lawyer

NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer

Matrimonial dispute case lawyer

Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Case Details:- Bronson Barthol Dias v. Central Adoption Resource Authority, Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2025, decided on 7-4-2025 Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioners having two biological children suffering from disabilities, wanted to adopt a third normal child, but their application was rejected, the Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. opined that in complex and emotional mindset, the parents of the children with disabilities naturally would have an intense dedication, desire, and happiness to receive a normal child in adoption to balance their life and to have an experience to raise a normal child, which they were missing. The Court opined that it could never be the intention of the statutory mandate that a couple which already had disabled children could be barred from adopting a normal child. The Court thus directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ application in accordance with law and by applying the power of relaxation under R...

Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Search This Blog