High CourtsDivision Bench(1923) 03 BOM CK 0024

Nilawa Iraya Mathapati and Another vs Revanshidaya Shidlingya

Bombay High Court · Decided on 9 March 1923 · Citation: 79 Ind. Cas. 208

HON’BLE JUDGES
Norman Macleod, C.J · Crump, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 133 words
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.