Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Maintenance Court Affirms Spousal Support Order and Dismisses Revision

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This criminal revision was filed by the revisionist-husband (Umesh Vidyarthi) challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, which partly allowed the wife’s maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000 per month from the date of the application until 30.07.2025, and Rs. 20,000 per month from the date of the order. The revisionist contended that the amount was excessive in light of the wife’s M.B.A. qualification and argued that the trial court erred by delivering the judgment without first disposing of a pending application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application was filed as a delaying tactic after the conclusion of final arguments, and that the awarded maintenance was fully justified given the husband’s admitted salary as a Divisional Engineer in the Railways.

  • Challenge to Maintenance Quantum:
    • The revisionist argued that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month was excessive and disproportionate.
    • He pointed out through affidavit disclosures under Rajnesh v. Neha that opposite party no. 1 was an M.B.A. graduate.
  • Income and Financial Status:
    • The Trial Court noted from the revisionist’s own admissions that his basic pay was Rs. 50,000 per month and his total monthly salary reached Rs. 74,513 while serving as a Divisional Engineer in the Railways.
    • The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the quantum fixed by the Family Court, taking into account his stable government income and standard allowances.
  • Timing of the Section 340 Cr.P.C. Application:
    • The revisionist heavily relied on Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P., claiming proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should not be concluded before deciding a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
    • The High Court distinguished the present case, noting that unlike Amit Bajpai, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. here was filed on 22.07.2025 only after final arguments had concluded and the matter was already fixed for judgment.
    • The Court observed that parties cannot abuse procedural safeguards at the eleventh hour to stall the pronouncement of judgments.
  • Final Verdict:
    • Finding no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or material irregularity in the lower court’s approach, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision as devoid of merit.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 90

Umesh Vidyarthi v. Madhubala And Another (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 90 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

High Court Appoints New Sole Arbitrator for Fresh Adjudication

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the re-appointment of a sole arbitrator. Although an earlier arbitral award had granted a principal amount of Rs. 15,12,253 to the Petitioner, the Section 34 court set it aside solely with respect to pre-reference and pendente lite interest, directing that the interest claim be adjudicated afresh. With the Respondent offering no objection to the reference, Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the petition and appointed Ms. Abha Malhotra, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to decide the limited issue of interest and related deductions under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

  • Nature of Petition: The petition was brought under Section 11 of the Act for the appointment of a new arbitrator following a partial setting aside of a previous arbitral award.
  • Scope of Remand: The Section 34 court had upheld the principal amount awarded to the Petitioner but remanded the matter back exclusively for the fresh adjudication of pre-reference and pendente lite interest claims along with related deductions.
  • Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Noting that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, the Court observed that a valid arbitration clause between the parties was undisputed.
  • Respondent’s Consent: Counsel for the Respondent raised no objection regarding the reference of the disputes back to arbitration.
  • Appointment of Arbitrator: Abha Malhotra, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810777876), was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the remaining disputes independently.
  • Procedural Directions: The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees regulated as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees, and the arbitrator is required to furnish statutory disclosures under Section 12(2) within three weeks.

2026 DHC 6497

Suri International v. Union of India (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6497 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Moratorium Halts Enforcement: High Court Disposes of Execution Petition Amid Personal Insolvency Proceedings

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present execution petition was brought before the Delhi High Court by the Decree Holder, Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd., against the Judgment Debtors, Mr. Krishan Dhingra and Anr. At the outset of the proceedings, counsel representing both parties jointly informed the Court that the Judgment Debtors were currently undergoing personal insolvency proceedings, under which a statutory moratorium was in active operation. In light of this development, Justice Om Prakash Shukla disposed of the execution petition while granting liberty to the Decree Holder to approach the Court by filing a fresh enforcement petition as and when the situation warrants.

  • Nature of Proceedings: The matter concerned an execution petition (OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 15/2019) filed by the Decree Holder.
  • Insolvency and Moratorium Status: Counsel for both sides jointly reported that the Judgment Debtors are subject to personal insolvency proceedings and that a moratorium is currently in effect.
  • Disposal of Petition: Acknowledging the operation of the moratorium, the High Court disposed of the execution petition.
  • Liberty Granted: The Court granted liberty to the Decree Holder to revive or file a new enforcement petition when circumstances permit in the future.

2026 DHC 6494

Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Krishan Dhingra & Anr. (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6494 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Pursuit of Representation Leads to Withdrawal of Arbitration Petition

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present arbitration petition was brought before the Delhi High Court, where the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a formal representation dated 07.08.2026 had been made to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. In light of this representation, the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the arbitration petition. With the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Respondent offering no objections, Justice Om Prakash Shukla granted the requested leave and liberty, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

  • Filing of Representation: The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.08.2026 to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India.
  • Withdrawal Request: Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present arbitration petition so that the Petitioner could actively pursue the aforesaid representation.
  • Respondent’s Stance: Chetan Sharma, learned ASG representing the Respondent, stated that he had no objections to the withdrawal.
  • Judicial Order: The High Court granted the requested leave and liberty, dismissing the arbitration petition as withdrawn.

2026 DHC 6492

Indian Polo Association v. Union of India Through Ministry of Housing Finance and Urban Land Development Office (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6492 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Ensuring Continuity in Land Compensation Arbitration: High Court Extends Arbitrator’s Mandate

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present petition was filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to adjudicate land compensation disputes arising from the acquisition of the Petitioners’ land for the construction of NH-344M under the National Highways Act, 1956. Although pleadings before the erstwhile arbitrator were completed, the proceedings were transferred to a newly appointed arbitrator (the Secretary, Land and Building) on 28.07.2023, who subsequently observed that his mandate had expired. With the Respondent having no objection to the extension, Justice Om Prakash Shukla granted a joint request from the parties and extended the mandate of the sole arbitrator by a further period of six months from the date of the order, while also regularizing the intervening period.

  • Nature of Petition: The petition was brought under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to secure an extension of the arbitral mandate.
  • Origin of Dispute: The underlying dispute relates to the enhancement of land compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, following the acquisition of the Petitioners’ land for NH-344M.
  • Transfer of Proceedings: Proceedings were transferred to a newly appointed arbitrator, the Secretary (Land and Building), vide an order dated 28.07.2023, during which it was noted that the mandate had lapsed and required formal judicial extension.
  • Respondent’s Stance: The Respondent, represented through counsel, submitted that they had no objection to the extension of the arbitral mandate.
  • Final Order and Relief: Acting on the joint request of both parties, the High Court extended the mandate of the sole arbitrator by six months and regularized the intervening period up to the date of the order, disposing of the petition accordingly.

2026 DHC 6488

Sh. Sube Singh & Anr. v. National Highway Authority of India (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6488 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins