Wife can not be denied maintenance on the ground that she has suppressed that she is temporarily employed
According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner since she suppressed the fact of her temporary employment she is disentitled from claiming maintenance. I cannot agree with this submission because it is a fact of common knowledge that the applicant while approaching the Advocate may be advised and may act on such advice resulting in non-disclosure that she was temporarily employed and such fact by itself would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband who had refused to maintain his wife and abandoned her company within months after marriage.
7. An identical issue was considered in Smt. Asha Anil 5
Deshmukh vs. Anil Mahadeorao Deshmukh reported in 1996 Cr.L.J. 2751 (Bombay High Court ). Under the circumstances when in the original proceeding the wife had specifically denied that she was gainfully employed as also her ability to support herself, it was held that there was no element of deceit or cheating against the husband or the Court which is an essential element of fraud and there was no suppression on the part of the wife either. It was particularly observed that if wife was gainfully employed that would not disentitle her from initiating an action u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. as she can still convince the court that even after the employment she was unable to maintain herself. Therefore, even assuming that the wife knew that she was gainfully employed that would not come in her way of initiating an action under section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus helpless women who has been forsaken by her husband who refused to maintain her, in such a case, even assuming that she was employed, it cannot be presumed that she was getting salary from the permanent employment and indeed that is sufficient to maintain herself. The principle of fraud to non suite the party on the basis of it is not attracted in the facts and circumstances which are altogether different in proceedings for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. That being so, no fault can be found with impugned judgment and order by which respondent Kavita was granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 400/- per month even assuming that she is gainfully
employed as a teacher at the salary of Rs. 1800 per month.
Bombay High Court
Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs 2) Ku.Rupali D/O Ravindra Patil on 8 October, 2008
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
