{"id":334,"date":"2019-01-28T11:18:59","date_gmt":"2019-01-28T11:18:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/?p=334"},"modified":"2019-01-28T11:18:59","modified_gmt":"2019-01-28T11:18:59","slug":"judgements-on-divorce-alimony-and-498a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/judgements-on-divorce-alimony-and-498a\/","title":{"rendered":"JUDGEMENTS on Divorce, Alimony and 498a"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1.  MUMBAI HIGH COURT  :  Dated\n4 Feb 2005<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance not granted\nas it is proved that wife wants to reside separately.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.  MUMBAI HIGH COURT  : Dated Apr\n2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance not granted\nas it is proved no reason to leave husbands.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.  CHENNAI HIGH COURT  : Dated 21\nJune 2002<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance Denied<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.  CHENNAI HIGH COURT  : Dated 21\nFeb 2003<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance For\nWorking Women<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.  MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT : Dated 24\nMarch 2000<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Interim\/Maintenance\nfor Capable, Working Women<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 28 July 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She was earning and she\nhad not come to the Court with clean hands.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 22 Feb 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wife Troubled -No\nMaintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. SUPREME COURT  : Dated 23 March, 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SC Judgement on HMA24 –\nWife working no maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. HIGH COURT OF P & H<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance awarded in\ntwo sections to be offset<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Old Parents, Maintenance\nreduced.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. MUMBAI HIGH COURT: Dated 22 February, 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perjury in 125 crPc<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Madhuri Bai vs\nMinor Surendra Kumar And Anr. on 24 April, 1998<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Child can claim\nmaintenance u\/s 125 from mother<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. MADRAS HIGH COURT: S.Chandra vs\nC.V.Sridharan on 21 February 2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claim alimony within 6\nMonths of Divorce<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. DELHI HIGH COURT: Sanjay Bhardwaj &\nOrs. vs The State & Anr. on 27 August, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unemployed man can not be forced to pay Maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Ines Miranda vs\nSantosh K Swamy dated 14 december 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRANSFER PETITION \u2013\nPayment to Husband<\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. MUMBAI HIGH COURT : Dated  17 July,\n1991<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Same relief\n(maintenance)cannot be asked twice in two different courts<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

17. DELHI COURT : METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW\nDELHI<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vexatious petition,\nmaintenance,relief is declined<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

18. BOMBAY HIGH COURT :  Dated 14 March\n2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perjury Judgement :\nRigorous imprisonment for False Case<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

19. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)TIS\nHAZARI COURTS, DELHI: Dated  15 April 2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance claim based\non Affidavit dismissed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

20. PUNJAB – HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated \n17 February 2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance claim based\non Affidavit dismissed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. DELHI HIGH COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Husband Property Not\nCounted in Maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

22.  HIGH COURT OF P & H : \nDated 28 July 1961<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance not based on\nArthmetic Calculation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

23. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 1\nSeptember, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claim of high status of\nhusband not sufficient for interim maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

24.  DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 30\nAugust, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multiple Maintenance\npetitions are not allowed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

25. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reduced Intrim\nMaintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

26.  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated \n11 June, 1993<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

27. MUMBAI HIGH COURT :  Dated  18\nJuly, 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance to Wife if\nRCR By Husband Suicceed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

28. MUMBAI HIGH COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Permanent Alimoney\nCancelled.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

29. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Income Tax and\nMaintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

30. MUMBAI HIGH COURRT: Dated 18 November 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Income tax returns cannt\ndecide Maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

31. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: Dated 29 August\n1991<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenging the rejected\ninterim maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

32. PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT: Dated 25\nJanuary, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

False affidavit, perjury\nprocedure in 24 HMA<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

33. DELHI HIGH COURT  : Dated 7 September\n2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Divorce withdrawn \u2013\nMaintance to be paid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

34. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated 16 November 2004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Father In Law not\nresponsible for Residence<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

35. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: Dated 22 September,\n1992<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women to Prove ligitimacy\nof child for maintenance<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

36. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bank Account Details and\nconfidentiality<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

37. BOMBAY HIGH COURT: Dated  15 September,\n2004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Return of\nStridhan,Alimony and Hidding Past<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

38. GAUHATI HIGH COURT: Dated  23 April,\n2004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guardianship within 2\nMonths<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

39. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  9 March,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fine for Delaying tactics\nby Lawyer<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

40. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Central Information\nCommission – CIC Order in Passport Details<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

41. UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT : Dated25 October\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance u\/s125Crpc\nfor working Women<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

42. UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT :  Dated \n18November,2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance u\/s Crpc\n125 if wife deserts husband<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

43. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated  22\nSeptember, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance formula\nevolved by judges for wife and child \u2013 PWDVA<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

44. MADRAS HIGH COURT: Dated  20 November\n2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mother is not always\nright person for custody<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

45. SUPREME COURT: Dated 2 March 2001<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rules for Child Custody<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

46. SUPREME COURT: Dated  23 March 2004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Illegitimacy of child is\nnot with Family court<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

47. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated  10 September\n2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No maintenance to Capable\nwife<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

48. MADRAS HIGH COURT: Dated  4 November\n2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Husband has to prove his\nEarning<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

49. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Dated  5 June\n2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 125\nCr.P.C.Proceedings under are civil in nature.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

50. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  15\nDecember, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wife has no Right on\nMonther in Law’s Property<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

51. KERALA HIGH COURT : Dated 10 December,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerla HC accepts the easy\nmisuse of DV<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

52. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Dated  9\nNovember, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Double jeopardy applies\nto same offence, not same facts<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

53. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  29 July,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Family members of NRI\nhusband cannot be accused in DV case<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

54. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  18\nSeptember, 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No maintenance to earning\nspouse<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

55. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  10\nJanuary, 2003<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alimony can be granted\neven to an erring spouse<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

56.PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT : Dated  23\nSeptember, 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

False case and Damage<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

57. ROHINI COURT – DELHI<\/p>\n\n\n\n

False Dv and Women Failed\nto Prove it<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

58. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Domestic Violence to be\nProved<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

59. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3rd Party Passport\nDetails are Allowed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

60. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  4\nNovember, 1997<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus for Custody\nand Visitation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

61. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  25 October,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioner must claim she\nis unable to maintain herself for <\/a>relief of maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

62. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated  25\nMarch, 1976<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioner must claim she\nis unable to maintain herself for <\/a>relief of maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

63. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 13 February,\n1980<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She should prove that she\nis unable to maintain <\/a>herself in addition to\nthe facts that her husband has sufficient means<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

to maintain her and that\nhe has neglected to maintain her<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

64. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated  22\nAugust, 2005<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No maintenance for\nearning wife<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

65. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI :\nDated  18 Nov 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employable wife not\nentitled to maintenance.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

66. DISTRICT COURT , SAKET, DELHI : Dated 24\nMarch 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An NRI wins an interim\nmaintenance case<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

67. FAMILY COURT , HYDERABAD<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hyderabad Family court,\nunclean hands, no maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

68. DELHI HIGH COURT: Dated  17 April\n2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conditions when\nmaintenance to be paid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

69. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  11\nJanuary, 2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All State Amendments in\nSec. 125 are invalid<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

70. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 17\nFebruary, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus for girl\nchild custody to Father<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

71. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 28 April,\n2005<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus dismissed\nin Custody Appeal<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

72. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  21\nNovember, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Custody to reMarried\nwomen<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

73. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 25 January, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus on Custody\nto Father<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

74. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated 6 February, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus for Custody\non Death<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

75. KERALA HIGH COURT : Dated  December,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NBW cannot be issued for\nnon payment of maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

76. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CIC \u2013 Income Tax Details\nof FIL are public<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

77. UTTARANCHAl HIGH COURT : Dated  17\nMarch, 2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HC Quash Maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

78. MUMBAI HIGH COURT :Dated  13\nSeptember, 1995<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No multiple maintenance\nclaims<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

79. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  9\nOctober, 1985<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Magistrate can grant\ninterim maintenance ?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

81. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  16\nFebruary, 2000<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus in Custody<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

82. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  27 March,\n2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Habeas Corpus in Divorce\n\/ Custody Petition<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

83.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  17\nOctober, 1974<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separate income of the\nwife can be taken into account in determining the amount of maintenance payable\nto her<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

84. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  31 January,\n2003<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HMA moveable property can\nnot be termed as Income<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

85. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  18\nSeptember, 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance On Actual\nEarnings<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

86. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  30\nSeptember, 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parents can kickout their\nChildren<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

87. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  28 March,\n2000<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liability of maintenance\nof children is co-extensive<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

88. GUJRAT HIGH COURT : Dated on 21 October\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Multiple maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

89. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  12 October,\n2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DV can be filed anywhere<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

90. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  28\nOctober, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Magistrate should not\nblindly call all family members as respondents<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

91. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  4 October,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DVA only against who are\nin domestic relationship<\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

92. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  20\nSeptember, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to decide domestic\nrelationship in DVA<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

93. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  8 February,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frivolous petition\nclaiming damages dismissed<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

94. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated  7 January,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance, Women fined,\nContempt of Court<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

95. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated  15\nNovember, 1995<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance to\nillegitimate Child ?<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

96. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RTI \u2013 Husband can get\nWife PF details<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

97. ANDHRA HIGH COURT : Dated  31 March,\n1989<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maintenance arrears for 1\nyear only !<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

98. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  6\nDecember, 2005<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fine for forcibly taking\naway Child<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

99. MADRAS HIGH COURT : Dated  28\nFebruary, 2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Family Court Jurisdiction<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

100. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  2\nMarch 2000<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wife is not entitled to\nmaintenance who has deserted her husband,<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

101. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  03\nDecember 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Maintenance If Wife\nLies<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

102. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated  28\nApril 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take EMI Into\nCosideration in Maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

103. HIGH COURT OF STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\nAT CHANDIGARH : Dated 13 March 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No alimony to Women who\ndesert her husband<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

104. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 23\nFebruary, 2009<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interim maint increase\nillegal as no income proof produced<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

105. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interim maint amt shuld\nbe based on status of both part<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

106. CHATTISGARAH HIGH COURT : Dated 15\nFebruary, 2004<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No maintenance for a\ndeserting wife<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

107. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT: Dated 22 January,\n1999<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No maintenance for a\ndeserting wife<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

108. BOMBAY HIGH COURT : Dated 26 February,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interim maintenance\ncannot be increased based on husband’s salary hike.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

109. GUJARAT HIGH COURT : Dated 9 February,\n2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Childrens has to maintain\nparents.<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

110. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 20 July\n2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meaning of unable to\nmaintain<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

111. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 27\nNovember 2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unable to maintain\nherself in Maintenance<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

112. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE DELHI :\nDated 28th August 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landmark Judgement for DV\nCase<\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

113. CHENNAI HIGH COURT : Dated 26th August\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perjury Case<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

114. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 19 January,\n2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wife fined 10,000\/- in\nPerjury case but Husband fighting for further action!!<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

115. DELHI HIGH COURT : Dated 18 August, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every allegations do not\njustify initiation of prosecution under 340 CRPC<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

116. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT : Dated 15 March,\n2001<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petition under CrPC 340\nmust be decided only at the end<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

117. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Dated 09 Janurary\n2003<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perjury application must\nbe decided first before proceeding with the case<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

118. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 14\nNovember, 1994<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No one should indulge in\nimmoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods : 2 weeks\nJail<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

119. GUJARAT HIGH COURT  : Dated 18\nAugust, 2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioner aggreed for\nperjury \u2013 Gujrat HC told to deposit 25K as probable fine<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

120. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA : Dated 1\nDecember, 2010SC judgement in CrPC 340\nwrt Chartered Accountants Act<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1.  MUMBAI HIGH COURT  :  Dated 4 Feb 2005 Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,28],"tags":[267,18],"class_list":["post-334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-maharashtra","category-news-and-updates","tag-divorce","tag-mumbai"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=334"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":335,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334\/revisions\/335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}