Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/05/whether-father-is-liable-to-pay.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:02:53+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether father is liable to pay marriage expenses of daughter if mother is earning income?
Whether father is liable to pay marriage expenses of daughter if mother is earning income?
daughter and he should not be left free of such liability.
liable to share the responsibility in pro-rata to their income.
maintainable before the Family Court is unsustainable in law.
Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannor is the appellant in Mat.A.No.
respondent/husband in the same case is the appellant in Mat.A.No.
for which she sent a reply expressing her unwillingness to join him.
12.04.82 onwards. She was living separately from the petitioner.
relatives. She was accusing him as a womanizer and a drunkard.
relationship even with his close relatives and several women.
home with children. Thereafter, he never cared to look after her.
caring their parents and they are in enemical terms with each other.
family is the root cause for his misbehaviour and bad character.
prayed for dismissal of the same.
petitioner and he is liable to return the same.
property which he had sold to the second wife vide sale deed No.
property or creating any encumbrance.
he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
born in the relationship with the first respondent.
purchased the property, the sister of the first respondent, Smt.
of the same is ill motivated and they will teach a lesson to her.
recorded in OP.No.613/2003 treating that case as a leading case.
respondent in OP.No.613/2003 has filed Mat.A.No.681/2007.
of return of gold ornaments directed him to pay a sum of Rs.
parties are party to that proceedings alone.
the 1st respondent for restitution of conjugal rights as OP(HMA).
No.82/2014 dated 6.1.2017 between Mrs. Nisha Rani v.
11 and granted the entire amount claimed under that head.
v. Rama Sisodia (2015 KHC 2303), Rajesh Shivhare v.
KHC 2786), Rohin Kumar v. Silvia (2015 KHC 2930), Imlesh v.
David M.D v. K.G. Mercy (2013 (3) KHC 739), Jagbir Singh V.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006 KHC 621) and Suman v.
Gajender (2015 KHC 3201) in support of his case.
Musturappa and Others (2006 KHC 3719), Viswambharan v.
rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger".
leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of other party"
subsequent event could have been looked into by court."
reported in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006 KHC 749).
attempts made for that purpose will amount to desertion."
cruelty and husband is entitled to get divorce on that ground."
reported in Rohin Kumar v. Silvia (2015 KHC 2930), Imlesh v.
by wife will amount to mental cruelty."
dissolved by relying of flimsy, shallow and baseless allegations."
will not by itself contribute to the factum of cruelty."
33. In the decision reported in David M.D. v. Mercy K.G.
35. In the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court bin M.F.
wife to stay away from the matrimonial home.
Chandra Kapour v. Ritu Kapour (2015 KHC 2020).
continue the marital tie, not possible will amount to mental cruelty.
Mat.A.No.681/2007 filed has to be considered.
dispute. It is also not in dispute that husband filed O.P.(HMA)No.
that there was desertion on the part of the wife.
the part of the wife.
Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor was ended in acquittal.
of cruelty u/s.13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.
find any reason to interfere with the same. So the Mat.A.No.
681/2007 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
his right in that property as per Ext.B13 document No.1338/83.
is not entitled to get any relief in respect of the same.
cents each and later they have sold the same separately.
will go to show that he had taken loan from the Department.
not find any reason to interfere with that finding.
and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
nothing mentioned in the counter statement regarding the same.
marriage was conducted by the mother by taking loan.
reported in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002 KHC 1275).
Section 125 Cr.PC in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
54. In the decision reported in Binulal K. V. Roopa R.S.
dictum is not applicable to the facts of this case.
55. In the decision reported in Commissioner of Gift Tax v.
57. In the decision reported in Smt. Sneh Prabha v.
even a party to that proceedings at the instance of the mother.
58. In the decision reported in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v.
minor son, unmarried daughters and aged or infirmed parents.
can be fixed on both.
60. In the decision reported in Thadisina Chinna Babu Rao, S/o.
religion to which she belongs.
the first respondent and the birth of the children are not in dispute.
expenses and marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter.
actual expenses incurred for the marriage of the daughter.
to interfere with the same.
coming to the matrimonial home and taking the gold ornaments.
other aspects the same has to be confirmed.
order passed by the court below is hereby confirmed.
parties are directed to bear their respective costs in all the appeals.

References: v.

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.

 v.

 v.