Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Gujarat High Court: In a common judgement adjudging two appeals filed by the appellant (‘wife’) against the Family Court order dated 31-3-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court had rejected the wife’s plaint for declaration of a divorce decree passed by Australian Court as null and void and for restitution of conjugal rights; the Division Bench of A.Y. Kogje and N.S. Sanjay Gowda*, JJ, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondent (‘husband’) could not have initiated divorce proceedings in an Australian Court when the marriage had been solemnized in India even though the parties had acquired foreign domicile. The wife and the husband had been married since 2008. Their marriage had been duly solemnized as per Hindu ritu...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi No interim maintenance for “affluent” wife with sufficient dividend income and assets: Madras High Court “The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle that she would have had in the matrimonial home.”... 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 8595...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Judgment:   Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja , (2017) 14 SCC 194 In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that making  false allegations  of extramarital affairs or criminal conduct amounts to mental cruelty and is valid ground for divorce. The Court stressed that marriage should be built on trust, and baseless accusations can severely damage the relationship beyond repair.

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has ruled that a husband’s claim of being “ready and willing” to keep his wife with him, made only in the course of litigation, does not qualify as a valid offer within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The matter arose from a revision slot deposit pulsa petition filed by the husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. His primary contention was that, since he had expressed readiness to keep her with him, she was not entitled to maintenance. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, "Since petitioner never offered to maintain his wife, therefore, merely because he has stated in his reply to the application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner in his reply cannot be said to be an offe...

X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1551, decided on 01-03-2024. Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by the appellant-husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., opined that temporary separation gave a sense of insecurity in the spouse’s mind that the other was not willing to continue the matrimonial bond. In the present case, it had been clearly demonstrated that soon after their marriage, parties had marital conflicts. The respondent-wife had no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents. Whereas, on the other hand the husband by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, but by choosing to stay with her parents, the wife had ignored her matrimonial obligations and deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH) Crl. Appln. No. 1249 of 1997 Decided On: 10.03.2001 Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundloikrao Wajge and Ors.  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 lawy...

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 X v. Y, Crl. Rev. P. No. 622 of 2024, decided on 15-7-2025. Delhi High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband for setting aside the judgment dated 6-4-2024 (impugned judgment), wherein the Additional Sessions Judge had directed payment of Rs. 1 lakh per month as maintenance, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., while upholding the impugned judgment, had stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) did not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for purposes of entitlement to maintenance. Background The wife (respondent) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking reliefs under Section...

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...

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 195/2025 Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 19-04-2025 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 split as ₹8,000 for the respondent-wife and ₹7,000 for their minor son. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that the findings of the Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties, and are in accordance with the binding guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903. The Court also reinforced that maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is not denied merely because the spouse is educated or capable of earning. The theoretical earning capacity cannot be conflated with actual income, and the p...