Interim maintenance Rejected Judgments in favor of husband.
Latest and Top Judgments and Citation on
Interim maintenance Rejected U/S 24 & 26 of HMA
(Section 24, 26 The Hindu Marriage Act, )
No Interim/Maintainance for Capable,Working Women
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH) Civil Revision No. 1290/99 Decided On: 24.03.2000, Appellants: Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Respondent: Rajesh Jaiswal, Hon’ble Judges:J.G. Chitre, J. Acts/Rules/Orders:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 and 26
6. In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ?
According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the
adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M. Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, can not be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice-versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That can not he treated to he aim, goal of Section 24.
It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient efforts arc unable to support and maintain themselves and arc required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.
8. In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarrelling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes
No interim maintenance to earning wife having sufficient means.
Madras High Court, Hindu Marriage Act , Manokaran alias Ramamoorthy vs M Devaki, Citation: (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad) ,Judgment date 21 Feb 2003
Link : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/54216/
No maintenance to earning spouse”, “Interim maintenance not for parity between spouses
Delhi High Court, Hindu Marriage Act, Manish Kumar vs Pratibha, Judgment dated 18 Sep 2008
Educated employable wife not entitled to maintenance
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Hindu Marriage Act, Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal, Equivalent Citation: 2000 (4) MPHT 457 ,Judgment date: 24 March 2000
Link : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1728023/
Petitioner being employed and living separate and being a major having her own independent source of income was not entitled to relief.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.MC No. 3325/2010, KAVERI ….. Petitioner versus Neel Sagar & Anr. ….. Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Linke http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141414000/
Interim maintenance Rejected U/S 125 of CRPC
INTERIM REJECTED AS WIFE IS ABLE TO SUSTAIN: If wife is able to sustain herself no interim maintenance court observed as follows: – Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai in CASE NO 1627 of 2007.
Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Bench: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM, CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1627 of 2007, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/2007
In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself…..
…..The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow…..
6. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means.
7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It is has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself.The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself.
8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn.
Link :http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1720873/ http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=29928
No Interim maintenance for Wife if she lives separate from Husband without sufficient cause:
Court: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, Bench: MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, CRIMINAL APPEAL No: Crl.R.C.No.1491 OF 2005, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22.2.2008
Marimuthu vs Janaki for Crl.R.C.No.1491 OF 2005 court observed as follows:
“Sub Clause 4 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., contended that a wife who is living away from her husband by mutual consent between the husband and wife, would not be entitled to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. sub Sections 4 and 5 of 125 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as hereunder:-
"(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”
Link : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/895661/ http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=13342
No interim maintenance to previously working wife
Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, Bench: SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,CM(M) No: 1790/2006 and CM No. 14635/2006 18.09.2008 ,DATE OF JUDGMENT:September 18 2008
The maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earnings of a person and not on his being able bodied person. In this country, there is no job guarantee given by the government to every able bodied person. Many able bodied persons are jobless in our country. The only job guarantee is under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under which 100 days labour work is assured to an unemployed rural person. The husband does not qualify for that. Moreover, the wife is equally able bodied. The wife has failed to show, in this case, any earning of the husband. She did not dispute the facts stated that the van was sold by her, the house was sold by her and she was facing a case filed by the father of the husband in respect of illegal sale of the house. The amount received from sale of the house is with the wife and she must be earning interest on it. She has failed to show any source of income to the husband. The bald allegation of his doing tuition without stating as to what was his educational qualification and to whom he was teaching, would not serve the purpose.
8. I find that the order of the learned ADJ was based on no material and was simply made on the ground that the husband was an able bodied person. The order of maintenance is not tenable and is hereby set aside. However, the husband is liable to pay the litigation expenses as fixed by the trial Court
Link: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DVhelp/info
“Maintenance rejected as the Woman is well qualified, employed earlier and quitted the job on her own will.”
Court: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, Author: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI, Crl. Rev. P. No: CRL.REV.P. 344/2011, Date:19.04.2012
Interim maintenance Rejected U/S 23 of DV act (Domestic Violence Act )
“REFUSE MAINTENANCE TO WOMEN IN DV CASE.”
Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ,Author: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT, Crl. Rev. P. No: CRL.M.C. No.2602/2010 , Date:30th January, 2012
Before awarding maintenance, the Courts are required to take note of the income of the husband and also the probable income of the wife. R.Ramu Vs. Smt. Leelavathi, HON’BLE JUSTICE Ajit J. Gunjal, J. Date of Judgment : 07/12/2009 Writ Petition No. 2118 of 2009 2010 (1) KarLJ 376 .
In order to substantiate above averments and in order to enlighten upon the subject, I am bringing kind attention of Hon’ble court about the ratio decided laid down by different higher courts of our country. One such point is the care that should be adopted by Magistrate court in disposing interim application regarding Domestic violence case. PARTIES: Razia Begum vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors, Crl.MC- 4246/09 & 4375/09, COURT: DELHI HIGH COURT, Date of Order: 4th October, 2010, BENCH: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, AVAILABLE SOURCE:- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1404656/ , http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/ :– It has to be noticed that although Domestic Violence Act is not a penal law but it is a peculiar Act where non-compliance of the order passed under the Act has been made as an offence under Section 31 of the Act and an FIR can be registered against the person who does not comply with the order and this offence is triable by the same Magistrate who passed the interim order for protection or maintenance. In view of this provision under Section 31, it becomes incumbent and responsibility of the Magistrate to be careful in passing order and to specify as to whether there was domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent and who was the person responsible for compliance of the order.
Wife is living separately without any appropriate reasons:
Court: HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, Bench: Alok Singh, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 201 Of 2006, DATE OF JUDGMENT:November 18, 2009
In smt. Archana Gupta vs Sri Rajeev Gupta for Criminal Revision No. 201 Of 2006, court observed as follows: I, myself, carefully perused the statements recorded by learned trial court. I find no perversity in the findings of fact recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun of the fact that wife is living separately without any sufficient cause and reason and she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. In view of findings that wife is residing separately from her husband without reasonable cause and reason, her application seeking maintenance was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.
Link :http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1746587/
No Maintenance if wife wants to reside separately:
Bombay High Court Mrs. Meena Dinesh Parmar vs Shri Dinesh Hastimal Parmar on 4 February, 2005 Bench: H Gokhale, R Mohite JUDGMENT R.S. Mohite, “
…We find from the evidence of the husband that the main reason given by him as to why his wife was unhappy was that she was seeking a separate accommodation and desired to stay away from the joint family. He has stated that his wife denied physical relations with him and caused him physical and mental torture …
… We find no justification in the contention of the wife for staying at Pune with her maternal uncle, even though her husband had purchased a separate place for their exclusive residence. Such an act on her part of staying at Pune along with her newly born son does amount to both cruelty as well as desertion and no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
6. So far as question of maintenance is concerned, in view of our aforesaid finding, maintenance cannot be granted to the wife.
Link:http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1401220/
No Maintenance If Wife Lies
Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Bench: G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ, Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002 ,DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.12.2009
Check Important Link
mensrightactivist 