Dear sir,
This news was published in DNA on 12/09/2013 with the following link
https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-come-clean-or-lose-out-on-money-relationship-1887569
Please help me to inform the further details( case no , name of the parties judge name and date of decision along with the name of the court ) to enable to trace the case details as I am also an advocate practicing in INDORE MP and it is urgently required by me in the similar case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come clean or lose out on money, relationship
2
0
7
9
Urvi Mahajani | Thu, 12 Sep 2013-07:14am , dna
No alimony if woman cloaks her job details: Family court.
A working woman who hides facts of her employment and earnings from the court is not entitled to maintenance, ruled the family court.
Observing that she had suppressed facts about her job, judge PL Palsingankar recently dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance from her estranged husband under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (DV Act).
He said that a working woman who is capable of earning and hides facts from the court is not entitled to maintenance.
The wife had initially approached the family court in 2010 seeking relief under the DV Act. She filed another petition in the family court in 2013, seeking maintenance from her estranged husband.
The woman claimed in her petition that she was a housewife. She alleged that her husband had forced her to resign from her temporary job and so she was dependent on her parents. She sought interim maintenance of Rs20,000 a month, stating that her husband drew a handsome salary.
MR Sabnis, advocate for the husband, opposed the plea stating that he (husband) did not earn Rs40,000 as claimed by the wife. Sabnis showed that he had a net salary of around Rs21,000. Besides, he had to repay loans taken from Mumbai Vidhi Tambakhu Vyapari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited and from his employer.
The wife had further claimed in her petition that the husband forcefully took away her four months’ salary which totalled to Rs32,000.
The family court noted that the wife’s petition itself proved that she earned Rs8,000 a month. The judge added that she had failed to prove her claim that she had resigned. Also, she had not provided details of her employer, designation or period of employment, added the family judge.
“All the details are suppressed. In the petition, she says that she is in service whereas in the interim stage she claims that she is jobless as she has resigned from the job,” observed the family court.
Dismissing the woman’s petition, the family court said: “It is not tenable in the eyes of the law and as such the petition filed by the petitioner (wife) is liable to be dismissed.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
