Any case where non working wife was declined maintainance??


My wife has filed a case u/s 125 for maintanance. She is working as a teacher in a private college. however  i cannot produce any proof of her working in that college. She is Post Graduate in two subjects and Doctorate Degree holder ( Ph. D).

Does the court keep in mind the educational background of wife , while deciding the question of maintanance??? She is living apart of her own free will....

Are there cases in the past where the court declined maintainance to a non working woman???

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE

Your wife's educational background will not deprive her right of maintenance.

If you are able to prove that she deserted you without any reasonable cause, you can escape. 

 
Reply   
 


Senior Partner

@ Author


I hate to put in public forums trail court Orders but to boost your morale I am placing a interesting order just to warm you up in order to make you self search 9 months back posts here where we had robust discussion on asked core question.


Yes there are several superior Court Orders from various States which more or less say so under both Act and Codes as asked in your brief before us. Baas ladaney wala hona chahiye............


There you go as your homework........



IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ROHINI COURT :
DELHI
M No. 28/07

Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal – Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal – Respondent

ORDER


1.. This is an order on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant/ wife, respondent in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the non-applicant/ husband, petitioner in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) for grant of maintenance pendentelite and for litigation expenses.


2.. In the application it is stated that the applicant/ wife has no independent source of income and she is not given any kind of maintenance by the non-applicant/ husband to live her life properly and therefore she is facing much hardship in the life. The non-applicant/ husband has flatly refused to maintain her. The non-applicant/ husband is working in a private sector as a Senior Software Engineer HPC in STM Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 A, Knowledge Park-2 (near LG Gol Chakkar), Greater Noida and is earning about Rs. 80,000/-pm. He has no other liability and he is not discharging his responsibilities towards the applicant/ wife with ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/ husband and, thus, being a husband, he is bound to maintain the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is fully dependent on the mercy of her parents, who are having other liabilities also and she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It is, therefore, prayed that the non-applicant/ husband be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-pm as maintenance allowance pendentelite to the applicant/ wife and expenses of proceedings.


3.. The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated that the applicant/wife is a well qualified graduate Engineer in the field of information Technology and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome salary as initially she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Now-a-days she is competent and qualified to earn thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/ husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed by her for any purpose in any manner. It is not denied that the non-applicant/ husband is also a qualified engineer and is employed in Greater Noida, U.P. but the actual amount of monthly salary being drawn by him is Rs. 45,000/-pm. It is stated that he has to maintain his retired father and ailing, diabetic mother and old grandmother and also to treat his two married sisters and to look-after his younger unmarried under-education sister of marriageable age as his younger sister is doing B.Ed. from a regular college. He is also paying loan premiums and other household expenses. The applicant/ wife has herself deserted her matrimonial home without any threats or atrocities caused to her by her in-laws and she is not returning to her matrimonial home despite the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the non-applicant/ husband. It is stated that the non-applicant/ husband is publicly and openly as well as warmly welcoming the applicant/ wife to her matrimonial home but she has started demanding maintenance sitting in her parental home to feed her greedy parents and selfish relatives instead of returning to her matrimonial home and to assist the non-applicant/ husband and her other in-laws in her matrimonial home at the time of need. It is stated that the conduct, attitude and nature of the applicant/ wife is of such type that she is not entitled for any maintenance. Further more, she has also filed a separate petition U/s 125Cr. P.C. for maintenance only with a view to get the non-applicant/ husband harassed in a criminal court. It is stated that the applicant/ wife is not a helpless or poor lady and she is not incapable to maintain herself as she is a well qualified engineer and is already an earning hand. She is handing over all her income to her parents. She does not require any monastery assistance from the non-applicant/ husband as she is already having a good bank balance in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Rohini, Sector-5,
Delhi , bearing A/c No. 61005521399 and several other bank accounts also. She also has some immovable properties in her name. It is denied that she requires Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance and other charges as prayed. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost.


4.. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record.


5.. During the course of arguments it has not been denied by the Counsel for the applicant/ wife that the applicant/ wife herself is an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife joined the job for some time after the marriage but thereafter due to the marital disputes she is not in a position to pursue her job and has left the same. In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:-

“Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition.”


6.. In I (2001) DMC 19 titled Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal Vs. Sanjay Kumar Ratilal Jaiswal, Mehsana, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the wife is entitled for Free Legal Aid and therefore, the Court should keep in mind that wife is entitled for free legal services also.


7.. In the present case the applicant/ wife is a well qualified engineer and, therefore, there is no need for her to sit idle at home waiting for the maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the applicant/ wife is well qualified and, therefore, can earn handsome amount by working and there is no need for her to be financially dependent upon her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance. While hearing arguments on the application it was ordered that the maintenance shall be granted to the wife till the disposal of the petition. This sentence in order sheet dated 27.08.2007 only means that the wife is entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition and not thereafter. It no where reflects that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance I every case come what may.


8.. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the application U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act of the applicant/ wife is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in
Open Court
Dated : 19.09.2007


Total likes : 4 times

 
Reply   
 
Worker

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 170
Author: J Chitre
Bench: J Chitre
ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The petitioner Mamta Jaiswal has acquired qualification as MSc. M.C. M.Ed, and was working in Gulamnabi Azad. College of Education, Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal (MHS). The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is sub-engineer serving in Pimampur factory. The order which is under challenge by itself shows that Mamta Jaiswal, the wife was earning Rs. 4,000/- as salary when she was in service in the year 1994. The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is getting salary of Rs. 5,852/-. The Matrimonial Court awarded alimony of Rs. 800/- to Mamta Jaiswal per month as pendente lite alimony, Rs. 400/- per month has been awarded to their daughter Ku, Diksha Jaiswal. Expenses necessary for litigation has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. The Matrimonial Court has directed Rajesh Jaiswal to pay travelling expenses to Mamta Jaiswal whenever sheattends Court for hearing of them matrimorial petition pending between them. Matrimonial petition has been filed by husband Rajesh Jaiswal for getting divorce from Mamta Jaiswal on the ground of cruelty. This revision petition arises on account of rejection of the prayer made by Mamta Jaiswal when she prayed that she be awarded the travelling expenses of one adult attendant who is to come with her for attending Matrimonial Court.
2. Mr. S.K. Nigam, pointed out that the petition is mixed natured because if at all it is touching provisions of Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) then that has to be filed within a month. Mr. Mev clarified that it is a revision petition mainly meant for challenging pendente lite alimony payable by the husband in view of Section 24 of the Act. He pointed out the calculations of days in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned order. In view of that, it is hereby declared that this revision petition is within limitation, entertainable, keeping in view the spirit of the Act and Section 24 of it.
3. A wife is entitled to get pendente lite alimony from the husband in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Act if she happens to be a person who has no independent income sufficient for her to support and to make necessary expenses of the proceedings. The present petitioner, the wife, Mamta Jaiswal has made a . prayer that she should be paid travelling expenses of one adult member of her family who would be coming to Matrimonial Court at Indore as her attendant. Therefore, the question arises firstly, whether a woman having such qualifications and once upon a time sufficient income is entitled to claim pendente lite alimony from her husband in a matrimonial petition which has been filed against her for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Secondly, whether such a woman is entitled to get the expenses reimbursed from her husband if she brings one adult attendant alongwith her for attending the Matrimonial Court from the place where she resides or a distant place.
4. In the present case there has been debate between the spouses about their respective income. The husband Rajesh has averred that Mamta is still serving and earning a salary which is sufficient enough to allow her to support herself. Wife Mamta is contending that she is not in service presently. Wife Mamta is contending that Rajesh, the husband is having salary of Rs. 5,852/- per month. Husband Rajesh is contending that Rs. 2,067/- out his salary, are deducted towards instalment of repayment of house loan. He has contended that Rs. 1,000/- are spent in his to and fro transport from Indore to Pithampur. He has also detailed by contending that Rs. 200/- are being spent for the medicines for his ailing father. And, lastly, he has contended that by taking into consideration these deductions as meagre amount remains available for his expenditure.
5. It has been submitted that Mamta Jaiswal was getting Rs. 2,000/- as salary in the year 1994 and she has been removed from the job of lecturer. No further details are available at this stage. Thus, the point is in a arena of counter allegations of these fighting spouses who are eager to peck each other.
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 lite 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 inspite 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 lite 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 bug 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, cannot 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 verssa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site 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 cannot be treated to be 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 effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.
7. In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs. 800/- per month as pendente lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of being reimbursed from husband whenever she makes a trip to Indore from Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is well qualified woman once upon time abviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village ? Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master's degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education,. would not feel herself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when atleast a bus service is available as mode of transport. The sumbission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestable. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged.
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 quarelling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged. Even then, if the spouses do not think of amicable settlement, the Matrimonial Courts should dispose of the matrimonial petitiorisas early as possible. The Matrimonial Courts have to keep it in mind that the quarells between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of their offsprings of such wedlocks. The offsprings do not understand as to where they should see ? towards father or towards mother ? By seeing them both fighting, making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderedness and loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on their minds and brains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to create complications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to such danger on account of such fighting parents.
9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed. The Matrimonial Court is hereby directed to decide the matrimonial petition which is pending amongst these two spouses as early as possible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit monthwise report about the progress of the said matrimonial petition to this Court so as to secure a continuous, unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs. The amount of pendente lite alimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband Rajesh Jaiswal should be deposited by him within a month by counting the date from the date of order. The failure on this aspect would result in dismissal of his matrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs. 400/- per month to his daughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of application of her maintenance i.e. 14.5.1998. That has to be also deposited within a month. He may take out sufficient money for that from his savings or take a loan from some good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure in this aspect also would result in dismissal of his petition. C.C.

Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com

Dear querist according to section 125 Crpc 25. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate of' the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate1[***] as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of' sufficient means. 2[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the Proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person] Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter. (a) Minor means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1975 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) "Wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 3[(2) Any Such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any Person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to company with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's 4[ allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the dare on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation. If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section 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. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to, live with her, husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. 1. The words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" omitted by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). 2. Ins. by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). 3. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 24-9-200). 4. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-200). STATE AMENDMENTS Madhya Pradesh: In section 125, in sub-section (1), for the words "five hundred rupees" the words m' "three thousand rupees" shall be substituted. [Vide M.P. (Act 10 of 1998), sec. 3 (w.e.f. 29-54998)] [Ed. This amendment has been I made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 W (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the I whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)]. Maharashtra: In Section 125,- (a) in sub-section (1),- (i) for the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees" the words "not I exceeding fifteen hundred rupees" shall be substituted; (ii) before the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provided that, the Magistrate on an application or submission being made, supported by an affidavit by the person who has applied for the maintenance under this sub-section, for payment of interim maintenance, on being satisfied that, there is a prima facie ground for making such order, may direct the person against whom the application for maintenance has been made, to pay a reasonable amount by way of interim maintenance to the applicant, pending the final disposal of the maintenance application: Provided further that, such order for payment of interim maintenance may, in an appropriate case, also be made by the Magistrate ex parte, pending service of notice of the application, subject, however, to the condition that such an order shall be liable to be modified or even cancelled after the respondent is heard in the matter: Provided also that, subject to the ceiling laid down under this sub-section, the amount of interim maintenance shall, as far as practicable, be not less than thirty per cent of the monthly income of the respondent."; (iii) in the existing proviso, for the words "Provided that" the words "Provided also that" shall be substituted; (b) after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- (2A) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), where an application is made by the wife under clause (a) of sub-section (1) for the maintenance allowance, the applicant may also seek relief that the order may be made for the payment of maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the payment of monthly maintenance allowance, and the Magistrate may, after taking into consideration all the circumstances obtaining in the case including the factors like the age, physical condition, economic conditions and other liabilities and commitments of both the parties, pass an order that the respondent shall pay the maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the monthly maintenance allowance, covering a specified period, not exceeding five years at a time, or for such period which may exceed five years, as may be mutually agreed to, by the parties."; (c) in sub-section (3),- (i) after the words "so ordered" the words, brackets, figures and letter "either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A), as the case may be," shall be inserted; (ii) after the words "each month's allowance" the words "or, as the case may be, the lump-sum allowance to be paid in lieu of the monthly allowance" shall be inserted. [Vide Maharashtra Act, 21 of 1999 sec. 2 (w.e.f. 20-4-1999)] [Ed. These amendments have been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)]. Tripura: In section 125, for the words "five hundred rupees" the words "one thousand five hundred rupees" shall be substituted. [Vide Tripura Act, 9 of 1999 sec. 2 (w.e.f. 9-4-1999}] [Ed. This Amendment has been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words" not exceed of five hundred rupees in the whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)]. STATE AMENDMENTS West Bengal: In Sub-section (1) - For the words "five hundred rupees" the words "one thousand and five hundred rupees" shall be submitted. (2) After the existing proviso, following proviso shall be inserted, namely. "Provided further that where in any proceeding under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the wife referred o in clause (a) or the minor child referred to in clause (b) or the child (not being a married daughter) referred o in clause (c) or the father or the mother referred o in clause (d) is in need of immediate relief for her or its or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Magistrate may, on the application of the wife or the minor child or the child (not being a married daughter) or the father or the mother, as the case may be, order the person against whom the allowance for maintenance is claimed, to pay to the petitioner, pending the conclusion of the proceeding the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such allowance as having regard to the income of such person, it may seem to the Magistrate to be reasonable. [Vide West Bengal Act 25 of 1992 (w.e.f. 2-8-1993)] [Ed. This Amendment has been made prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) whereby the words "not exceed of five hundred rupees in the whole" have been omitted by sec. 2 (w.e.f, 24-9-2001)]. [Vide W.B. Act 25 of 1992 (w.e.f. 2-8-1993) in this section it is not mention that if the wife will be more educated then she can not claim maintenance from her husband, if you have any proof or if you can prove that she is live separately without any sufficient means and live with her own will, she can not claim maintenance or court may dismiss her petition. Feel free to call
 
Reply   
 
Advocate High Court Chandigarh M:09814110005 email:adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com

There are various judgments but it depends upon situation of your case. So better to consult your advocate and after going through your case, he will guide you the right way out.

Good luck.

 
Reply   
 
Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA

If she is working, better call the records of that institution to court.

 

 

Regards,

 

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Sir,

I have filled a case under Sec 12 (1) (1-C) as my consent was taken by fraud concealing the health issues of the girl. The girl has filled for Interim Maintenance under Sec 24. The girl is well qualified with MCA, MA Sociology, Passed Examination for English Typing, Passed qualifying examination for Contractual Teachers in Madhya Pradesh.

I am a law student and am dependent on my father for my expenses. Please advise me as the girl is well qualified with proffessional education and capable to maintain herself, would the court still award maintenance to her. And if yes then how much.

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

A qualified woman (MBA) was asked by her matrimonial home to sit at home and perform the duties of a housewife and not allowed to do the job.  Due to disputes with her husband she had to go back to parents' house and there she applied for maintenance under HMA. If a qualified woman is made to sit at home by the in-laws and husband can the court still say that she can maintain herself and hence not eligible for maintenance, as there shall be "status quo" even after leaving her husband.

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Qualified woman's father also admits that she did not support his daughter to be educated in order that she does a job.  And in laws and husband also not asked her to do the job.  So she has every case to remain jobless despite being qualified.  Under such circumstances can the court deny alimony to her?

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu