AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 136

4.12.3. Which of the two conflicting views deserves to be adopted?-

The Law Commission is of the opinion that while both the views are plausible, the Punjab view that an application claiming maintenance or permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act can be made to 'any' court within the meaning of section 19 to which the main petition could have been made, is preferable. It gains strength from the fact that the Legislature has employed the expression "any Court" instead of employing the expression "the Court". In any case, the Punjab view is more conducive to justice in the sense that it results in alleviating the hardship of a spouse entitled to claim maintenance or permanent alimony. The contrary view is likely to occasion great misery and hardship to such a spouse.

An illustration may be useful to buttress this proposition. Say a husband obtains an ex parte divorce decree at Bombay. The wife residing at Madras where the marriage was solemnized will be obliged to go to Bombay to seek alimony involving time-cost, travel-cost and money-cost which she cannot possibly afford. She may find it practically impossible to do so. Such would not be the position if she can move the Madras Court where the marriage was solemnized. Accordingly, the view that an application for maintenance, etc., under section 25 of the Act can be made to 'any' court in which the main petition could have been instituted having regard to section 19 of the Act deserves to be adopted.



Conflicts in High Court Decisions on Central Laws - How to Foreclose and how to Resolve Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys