Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992

Background: Vinod Kumar Kejriwal and Usha Vinod Kejriwal were involved in a legal matter. Vinod had initially filed for divorce, making baseless claims against Usha. The case moved from Mathura to Bombay City Civil Court and then to the Family Court, indicating difficulties in their relationship.

Case History: Vinod filed a divorce petition in Mathura on grounds of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. Usha responded with a petition in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Mathura petition was mistakenly dismissed, leading to restoration efforts.

Relevant Dates:

  • Marriage: May 24, 1983.
  • Birth of son Vishal: May 8, 1984.
  • Filing of Mathura divorce petition: October 26, 1985.
  • Bombay petition for conjugal rights: November 26, 1985.
  • Restoration application: December 4, 1985.
  • Supreme Court transfer petition: January 1986.
  • Supreme Court order transferring the case to Bombay: December 15, 1986.

Legal Argument: Vinod argued that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act were not valid, citing the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. He claimed that Usha should seek maintenance under the latter act.

Court’s Decision: The court rejected Vinod’s argument, stating that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for maintenance, which is not covered by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The court highlighted Vinod’s earlier false allegations, justifying Usha’s concerns about living with him.

Maintenance and Expenses: The court upheld the maintenance awarded to Usha, despite Vinod’s complaints about the duration of proceedings. It found that documents regarding Vinod’s income were fabricated to evade maintenance. The court affirmed that Usha, without independent income, deserved support and expenses for legal proceedings.

Conclusion: The court dismissed Vinod’s plea to withdraw the divorce petition and directed him to deposit a specified amount within two weeks. If not, Usha could proceed with legal actions. The court also mandated Vinod to give Usha notice before approaching the Supreme Court.

Additional Notes: The court noted Vinod’s reluctance to disclose true financial details and emphasized that Usha, despite starting a legal practice, lacked sufficient income for her support and legal expenses. The court also considered Vinod’s attempt to retire without receiving his share in the family business as questionable.

Reference Links:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *