Kindly call on 022 26111281 or on 9322286663 and take prior appointment for setting up meetings / conference at Head Office i.e "Siddhartha Shah & Associates, Advocates, 11 Hamam House, ground floor, Hamam street, next to Bombay stock exchange, Fort Mumbai -23.
Email : "firstname.lastname@example.org".
Legal Professional meeting charges shall be on hourly basis. which kindly confirm before booking the meeting.
Dr. A. Jairam vs Dr. A. Suman on 9 May, 2005
In this particular judgement, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal of a husband who claimed that he was not entitled to pay maintenance to his two minor sons as his wife was working as a government employee and was earning over Rs. 25,000 p.m. The court was of the opinion that:
It is no more res integra that where both the husband and wife, are in gainful employment, proportionately they have to share the expenses of maintenance being incurred on their children. Only on the ground that the wife is in service and earning handsome amount, the appellant is not relieved of his legal and pious duty and responsibility to maintain his children. Proportionately he has to share and contribute the expenses towards their maintenance and that what precisely has been clone under the impugned order by the learned Family Court, Ajmer.
Another contention that was raised by the husband in his appeal was that the Respondent wife has asked for maintenance of the children under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and no such provision under the Hindu Marriage Act exists and is thereby outside the jurisdiction and maintenance to the children cannot be awarded u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
“It is no more res integra that merely on mentioning a wrong provision on the application, the Court ordinarily not to deny the relief to the litigant where it is satisfied that the relief as prayed for by that litigant therein is grantable by it under any other provision of the Act or other Act…… All endeavours are to be made by the Courts that a litigant merely on the error committed by his Advocate in mentioning the provision in the application or by the Court in its order, they may not be denied of the justice, though they are entitled for the same under the Act, may be under different section.”
The Husband’s appeal was thereby dismissed.
Click here to view judgement