No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women:
As per newspaper report (Times of India, 14.05.2009), the District Court in Delhi Refused maintenance to a wife who was found able bodied and educated. Justice Rajendra Shastri said,
“An able bodied person expected to maintain himself and family members depended on him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.” Unquote.
The judgment is also took into consideration the applicant wife conduct like elopement of wife with his lover, abandonment of minor child and health of the husband. Nevertheless, the judgment is a step towards making maintenance laws, what it is.
Maintenance is not a bounty. It is not a birth right of a wife. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for a women, who cannot maintain herself & who has done the duties of a pious wife, to claim from her husband. Any women who has not done the duty of a pious wife, must not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The other point is “ability to maintain herself”. A young healthy women, who is educated (even when not educated, can work as maid- many uneducated women are maintaining themselves that way) cannot be classified to be not able to maintain herself. The test is , whether a women of applicants ability is able to maintain themselves in the society or not- if yes, no maintenance- if no, there is a case for maintenance.
Maintenance laws needs to be applied strictly and in rare circumstances. It is usurpation of fruits of labour of a man in the guise of gender biased welfare laws. Such usurpation cannot be allowed to be made in a routine manner.
IT is an order of the Dist., Court, what the High Court says it is to be looked into. Any this order creates some relief to the husbands.
Usually maintenance cases filed because of the small disputes between the husband and wife and there are aslo cases ecause of the negligence of the husband wife suffers. This order may creates new point.
Normally the court doesnot take into consideration as to when can we say that the applicant is not able to maintain herself. It is not wilingness to maintain herself, or wish to maintain herself as a queen- it is ability to maintain herself.
I find is sickening when the court grant maintenance for "maintenence of status"- what status a human being has if he/she cannot maintain itself.
“Status of husband” be damned! Once the woman has cut off ties with her husband, she has cut off ties with his “status” as well! What the Hell are you advocating? That the woman retains the ‘right’ of appropriating her former husband’s earnings even though there is no longer an intimate/personal bond between them? If so, equitable reciprocity requires the former husband to avail from the ex-wife selected marital privileges outside of marriage either by him directly or vicariously through his friends! Fair is fair! What do you say now?
What carlisle is saying may appears odd or inappropriate, but is very true.
When a wife leave her husband, she leaves her husband's stauts too. Further, every relationship in this world has "quid pro quo". The law has to think as what responsibility it is imposing on wife/ex wife for receiving maintenance. Claim of maintenance cant be based on charity.
Further, a women who has brought disrepute on the husbands family by making false allegations in court, or eloping with her lover or failing to do pious duties of wife must never be eligible for maintenance.