An interesting ruling on alimony

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:02 pm

...."The divorcee would suffer disqualification from claiming maintenance if she had relationship with another man. She was entitled to get maintenance from the person with whom she had relationship and not from the ex-husband," he said.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:42 am

The last bit is silly. Why should someone else - who didn't marry her - be under any obligation to maintain her?

by Guest Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:58 am

Hmm guess because the divorce was on the grounds of adultery, by her. In India they consider "faults" in a divorce. Ya the last part sounds more like a crossed lover being bitter, a judge can't rule that, can they?

Here in nj (and I guess in most states), most clauses have the alimony being canceled once the women (mostly women get the alimony), is in a live-in relationship for 2-3 months with a new partner.

by garam-kuta Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:12 am

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:Hmm guess because the divorce was on the grounds of adultery, by her. In India they consider "faults" in a divorce. Ya the last part sounds more like a crossed lover being bitter, a judge can't rule that, can they?

Here in nj (and I guess in most states), most clauses have the alimony being canceled once the women (mostly women get the alimony), is in a live-in relationship for 2-3 months with a new partner.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:33 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The last bit is silly. Why should someone else - who didn't marry her - be under any obligation to maintain her?

whoever's getting the milk needs to feed the cow

by bw Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:09 pm

Veeu wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:Hmm guess because the divorce was on the grounds of adultery, by her. In India they consider "faults" in a divorce. Ya the last part sounds more like a crossed lover being bitter, a judge can't rule that, can they?

Here in nj (and I guess in most states), most clauses have the alimony being canceled once the women (mostly women get the alimony), is in a live-in relationship for 2-3 months with a new partner.

why are shivaji mama and padmini mami so despondent ? enna achu?

by garam-kuta Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:20 pm

bw wrote:
Veeu wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:Hmm guess because the divorce was on the grounds of adultery, by her. In India they consider "faults" in a divorce. Ya the last part sounds more like a crossed lover being bitter, a judge can't rule that, can they?

Here in nj (and I guess in most states), most clauses have the alimony being canceled once the women (mostly women get the alimony), is in a live-in relationship for 2-3 months with a new partner.

why are shivaji mama and padmini mami so despondent ? enna achu?

They are about to get divorced and are discussing about alimony.

by goodcitizn Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:15 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:The last bit is silly. Why should someone else - who didn't marry her - be under any obligation to maintain her?

whoever's getting the milk needs to feed the cow

...

...

by Sponsored content

An interesting ruling on alimony

An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony

Re: An interesting ruling on alimony