When husband is not entitled to get exorbitant maintenance from wife?
extreme positions. The petitioner, at least, presently, has taken up a
extreme stand that she is unemployed and earns nothing. On the
other hand, the respondent, by pointing out to his physical
impairment, has taken the same stand with the further addition that
he is incapable of earning anything even in the near future. There
does not appear to be truth, in each of the extreme stands adopted
by the parties. The petitioner is a qualified professional, who has at
least in the past, taken up several important jobs. The petitioner, is
also involved in theater, though, it is not quite clear as to whether
she earns anything substantial in this field. It is however not
possible to accept that the petitioner is totally unemployed and has
no income whatsoever. At the same time, it is also not possible to
accept that the respondent is in no position to earn anything at all
for his own maintenance. Despite, the physical impairment, the
respondent does have the earning capacity, particularly, by way of
taking computer classes or tuitions. The respondent fortunately has
some premises, from where he can take up such classes. The
physical condition of the respondent is certainly not such as to
disable him from taking up any employment. The respondent also
appears to have the family support.
Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the material on
record, interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed
to pay to the respondent by way of interim maintenance an amount
of Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from 27 August 2004 till the final
disposal of Petition No. A-199 of 2002. In the impugned order, the
Family Court, has no doubt, awarded interim maintenance at
different rates for different periods. This exercise, of awarding
different rates for different periods is no doubt proper. However, it
must be noted that between the year 2004 and 2006, when the
respondent had met with an accident, it is possible that the
respondent was not in a position to earn anything significant and at
the same time was required to bear significant medical expenses.
Further, in the later years as the position of the respondent
improved, the respondent must have been in a position to earn
income and at the same time there was corresponding decrease in
medical expenses. As of now, the respondent is certainly in a
position to take up suitable employment and the mere
circumstance that the respondent is not doing so, does not mean
that the respondent is entitled to exorbitant maintenance from the
petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10406 OF 2015
Meenakshi Prashant Kshirsagar .. Petitioner
vs.
Prashant Tukaram Kshirsagar & Anr. .. Respondents
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 03 February 2016
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ 260
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/when-husband-is-not-entitled-to-get.html
