Skip to content


Nilawa Iraya Mathapati and anr. Vs. Revanshidaya Shidlingya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.208
AppellantNilawa Iraya Mathapati and anr.
RespondentRevanshidaya Shidlingya
Excerpt:
maintenance, suit for - quantum of maintenance, determination of--decree--belief--practice. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s......1. the district judge was wrong in not remanding the ease to the trial court to ascertain what maintenance should be payable to defendant nos. 1 and 11. we have repeatedly laid down the general principle that, in all cases of this class, where a right to maintenance has been allowed the quantum of maintenance should be decided in the suit itself, even though the parties may not have, in the first instance, provided the court with the materials. once that right is decided, it is eminently desirable that the quantum should be ascertained in the suit itself, and that the parties entitled to maintenance who are generally females should not be left to separate proceedings. the appeal will be allowed to that extent.2. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. The District Judge was wrong in not remanding the ease to the Trial Court to ascertain what maintenance should be payable to defendant Nos. 1 and 11. We have repeatedly laid down the general principle that, in all cases of this class, where a right to maintenance has been allowed the quantum of maintenance should be decided in the suit itself, even though the parties may not have, in the first instance, provided the Court with the materials. Once that right is decided, it is eminently desirable that the quantum should be ascertained in the suit itself, and that the parties entitled to maintenance who are generally females should not be left to separate proceedings. The appeal will be allowed to that extent.

2. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //