How much % of amount wife is eligable to take maintenance if

Can any one reply regarding this.

Thank you

@ Author

1. First you have to submit in Court your liabilities under Affidavit to consider by Court the net Income for considering her cliams if any on maint. head.
 

2. In presented case if the 23 K are legitimate proof carried personal liabilities then from the balance amount which is 11 K the 1.3rd. or 1/5th. maint. may be given to her provided she is not highly qualified, not earning, has resonable reason to leave away form you and has also proved (prime facie) your income to concerned court.


3. These liabilities disbursement shall have been before she raised her demnd under court of Law remember that. meanign thereby if she filed maint. application on 31st. march your liabilities deduction shall have been before that date not after otherwise perception of Court will dramatically infrence otherwise !

its unbelievable that you got personal loan with emi of 23k on a salary of 34k, its impossible....

Honi ko Anhoni Karde, Unhoni ko Honi....!!

  Praveen Kumar said,"its unbelievable that you got personal loan with emi of 23k on a salary of 34k, its impossible...."

Everything is possible in love and war.

Is the Institution of Marriage a Business Institution so percentage of shares taken into consideration?  If so it is ever a smart business deal to have a rich husband.

I think the maintenance is meant for bread not for butter.

Dear Mr. Tajobsindia:

 3. These liabilities disbursement shall have been before she raised her demnd under court of Law remember that. meanign thereby if she filed maint. application on 31st. march your liabilities deduction shall have been before that date not after otherwise perception of Court will dramatically infrence otherwise .

As per the above, does that mean the husband can never take any loan in his life if wife lives separately because than he have to pay maitenance as per his current salary but  his EMIs will not be included under his liabilities.

A number of judgements , some of them are posted here in the forum--have taken into account only statutory deductions for deciding the maintenance amount. 

Yes, agree with ambikaji 

@ author

You can even find a lots of judgments here.

Here is some of them:

CA/6911/2004 4/4 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6911 OF 2004

In

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2004

==============================================================

RITABEN ASHWINKUMAR PARMAR - Applicant(s)

Versus

ASHWINKUMAR MANILAL PARMAR - Opponent(s)

============================================================== Appearance :

MR. JAYESH A. DAVE for Applicant(s).

MR. H.R. PRAJAPATI for Opponent(s).

=====================================================================

CORAM :

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

Date : 10/10/2005

ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)

1. The parties are heard.

2. This is an application under Section-24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance.

3. The wife has submitted that as her husband's salary is Rs. 13,000/- plus, the Court be pleased to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance during pendency of the appeal. It is also submitted that the Court below, in a most cruel and indecent manner, awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards permanent alimony, less realising that the interest at the present Bank's rate would be hardly Rs. 150/- per month, that would be Rs.5/- per day and in a sum of Rs.5/- per day, it is impossible to maintain even a pet. It is also submitted that if Rs. 5,000/- are needed and the said amount is used by the wife out of the permanent alimony, then, the total amount of permanent alimony would exhaust in six months and she would be left with nothing and will have to go for vagrancy.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband has filed an affidavit of the husband opposing the application. It is submitted in the affidavit that the gross salary is Rs. 13,753.74, out of which the total deductions are Rs. 7,896.94 and his take home salary is Rs. 5,855.31; out of the said take home salary, he has to maintain his old and infirm father, the wife, with whom he has married after grant of decree of divorce, and the son begotten out of the second marriage.

5. Prima facie, the submission of the Counsel for the respondent-husband about the deduction of Rs. 7,896.94 from the gross salary appears to be reasonable and lucrative, but, if a close scrutiny is made against the items of deductions, then, it would clearly appear that except Rs. 333/- deducted towards income tax and Rs. 886/- deducted towards provident fund, which are the standard deductions, all other deductions are towards the earlier loan taken by the husband or towards the interest of the loan taken by the husband. The moment a person takes a loan, then, he virtually withdraws the salary in advance and pays interest on it. The deduction from the future salary has to compensate what has been withdrawn by the husband in advance. If, out of the take home salary, the husband wants to pay for LIC premium, housing loan, supplementary loan and the loan taken from the credit society, then, he can't be allowed the luxuries to have everything in the life and say before the Court that his take home salary is so low that he can't pay reasonable amount to the wife.

6. It was submitted by the parties that on an earlier occasion, the wife had demanded a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs towards permanent alimony with an undertaking or assurance to withdraw the appeal, but, the husband only wanted to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in lump sum. We asked Mr.Prajapati to seek further instructions from the respondent, who was present in the Court, but, the respondent says that he would prefer to pay the monthly alimony and not a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs, as demanded by the wife.

7. Left with no choice, we grant the application with a direction that from the date of the application, the husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the wife towards maintenance. If the husband does not pay this amount to the wife directly or through the agency of the Court, then, the wife shall be entitled to submit an application to the employer of the husband, along with a copy of this order for making particular deductions in the salary and for paying the amount to the wife, until further orders from this Court. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.

[R.S.Garg, J.]

[K.M. Mehta, J.]

kamlesh*

And here is one another:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 879 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7503 of 2008]

BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN

Versus

MANSI MEEN @ HARPREET KAUR

WITH

SLP(Crl.)No.7924 of 2008

...

Appellant(s)

... Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave is granted in SLP(C) No.7503 of 2008.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1 st July,

2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc.No.14793-M of 2008,

whereby the appellant's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing the orders dated 25th July, 2007 and 6th November, 2007

passed by the courts below granting Rs. 10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to

the respondent-wife, was dismissed.

Taking into consideration the evidence adduced, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, before whom the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the respondent-wife is pending, directed the

appellant-husband to pay the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of interim maintenance

to the respondent-wife during the pendency of the proceeding. The said order was

2

affirmed both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court.

Before us, the appellant-husband, who is appearing in person, has shown that

his salary certificate had been produced before the Magistrate, from which it appears

that he was drawing approximately Rs. 34,900/- per month towards his salary, out of

which various deductions were being made, including a deduction of Rs. 21,329/-

towards the home loan which he had obtained, leaving in his hand as takeaway salary

a sum of about Rs. 9000/-.

The appellant has submitted that in that view of the matter, the amount as

awarded by the Magistrate to the respondent-wife was not justifiable.

The appellant-husband has also taken another point regarding the

maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of the ability

of the respondent-wife to maintain herself.

On behalf of the respondent-wife, it has been urged that having regard to the

net salary, which the appellant is entitled to take home, the amount as assessed by way

of interim maintenance by the Magistrate and as upheld by the Sessions Judge as well

as the High Court, could not be said to be excessive and that the fact that the appellant

had taken the home loan which has been adjusted against the salary, is no

consideration for altering the said amount, as had been granted by the learned

Sessions Judge.

As far as the second point taken by the appellant is concerned, it was submitted

that the same required evidence and had to be to ultimately decided by the Magistrate

while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and considering the

reality of the situation to the effect that the appellant is receiving a sum of about

Rs. 9000/- in hand after deduction of various amounts, including the instalments

3

towards repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the amount as awarded

by way of interim maintenance is on the high side. At the same time, we cannot also

shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least

there is nothing on record to indicate she is employed in any gainful work. However,

having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought

not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.

Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate, granting

Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife by way of interim maintenance and

direct that the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs. 5000/-

per month, instead of Rs. 10,000/-, and all other terms and conditions, as indicated by

the learned Magistrate, will continue to operate.

We are informed that there are huge arrears, which are yet to be paid by the

appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. The learned Magistrate shall recalculate

the amount of arrears on the basis of the order passed today and the appellant-

husband shall within three months of the re-assessment of the amount, pay the sum to

the respondent-wife, if necessary, in three installments, to be decided by the learned

Magistrate.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the question as to what would be

the amount payable by way of maintenance per month to the respondent-wife and this

is only an interim arrangement till the matter is finally disposed of by the learned

Magistrate. We also keep open the second question raised by the husband-wife

regarding the applicability of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as far as the respondent-wife is

concerned.

Since the matter has been pending for a long time and evidence has been

recorded to some extent, we direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the pending

4

proceedings within six months from the date of communication of this order.

The other Special Leave Petition, being No.7924 of 2008, be delinked from the

appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.7503 of 2008, being disposed of by this order, and be

listed separately for final disposal after the summer vacation.

The order of attachment of the salary of the appellant, which had been stayed

in these proceedings, shall continue till the final disposal of the matter by the learned

Magistrate. In the event, the appellant defaults in making the payment in terms of this

order, the Magistrate will be at liberty to re-impose the order of attachment.

...................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi,
April 28, 2009.

And looking those judgments,it seems that the lower courts are very emotional and not to take proper(circumstances ,evidences,facts etc) view but after an appeal it seems all good.

Every 

judgement may have its own limitation, but then the logic can be used by your wife to show the unreasonableness of your deductions.

 @ Sh. R. Kumar


Actually I didnot get your point referred to me. All I said let me illustrate them as follows;

In ideal husband and wife cohabitation scenarios either and one and or both takes loans for some or the other family needs or liabilities is it not right act of a couple ! If it is right then flip it and when a wife deserts matrimonial home and prior to desertion and or before any maint. case in floor of any court if husband has taken loans and meeting payments then it means he can very well take loans and not that wife has left so he is not supposed to take loan for meeting as is in authors post say medical emergencies be it for himself or any of his dependents or some EMI's for home loan or car loan whatever. Wife leaving matrimonial home does not mean end of all scene roller coaster for a husband infact practically I have seen Indian husbands grows professionally once their better halfs deserts...............


Mind it we lawyers are not JUDGING as a JUDGE any brief(s) here, I also suppose this premium legal forum is not built on such motives to Judge a post with self ideas and views as I also feel that many a posts are silently read by lots of general public, professionals and experts in subject matters so it is always safe as I learnt the hard way from a bubbing female ld. Lawyer some time ago to confine a post reply to legal limits (PERIOD). I specially go by wordings of a brief without some of the lamba choida personal bhashans of some of the prejudiced writers so if as per your que. which I interpret as above bottom line is read S. 60 CPC to understand what liabilities a husband is allowed and all statutory liabilities he is allowed and so called lower Court judgments making husbands pay even his kidney are interpretations of a particular ld. Judge based on a particular suit and emotional and sob sob factors of court which we see every day in various courts and since it is time and money consuming affair for a husband to keep going up to higher forums to challenge the same it becomes difficult to interpret them correctly on a tombstone otherwise Law is already well written about what liabilities can be taken into consideration to decide maint. for a errant wife and that also includes EMI / personal Loan for medical as the case in hand is all about.


Now if you really insist and want my personal opinion on subject matter which you have a right to disagree then I prefer Indian husband to die a debit man as once a errant wife understand what are her "duties" in a marriage and not get struk to 'RIGHTS ONLY" till then it is better to be in debt thy name Indian husband then only misuse of multiple riding horses for one and same reliefs the errant wifes club will stop misusing and will also lessen the burden on judiciary too. Today same MM in majority of District Courts are struggling to give justice to a errant wife for her S. 125 CrPC as well as DV Maint. which are mentioning same facts for two maint. but using two different Codes / Acts for same relief and third one with same facts she is made to files is U/S. 24 HMA as majority of husbands out of social fear mistakenly file S. 9 HMA as soon as a errant wife crosses the family doormat so there you go she is unknowingly allowing herself to ride three horses for one and same relefs under professional and family influnce which I find very very amusing as it burns herself down court memory lane at the end and comes to negotiation table at the end when her hair start turning grey which is not the way she is supposed to have been treating herself too if we see the social / age aspect part...............anyhow let us leave all these n I wish you would have iunderstood my simple English in the beginning itself..................

Oh I noticed here, my friend Bhushans SC judgment is one classic eg. which ld. Kushan unknowingly put here to help Indian husbands J Thanks Ld. Kushan you did make my day J Ld. Kushan you may not know in this case wife tells Lordships that untill Bhushan removes his very sr. retired old parents from matrimonial home and Govt. provides her security in matrimonial home she will not like to join his company and LOL she filed and won S. 9 HMA which Bhushan never contested and now you see Bench Chief's reaction to cause title how to please the lady at the end ha ha.


We men are not bad after all as is made to prejudiced about by you five women...............it is just simple miss-understanding problem we biologically programmed different species is all about.........

Thanks for your detailed explanation...On lighter side or on serious note, but I liked one of your points very much,

Indian husband to die a debit man as once a errant wife understand what are her "duties" in a marriage and not get struk to 'RIGHTS ONLY"

Can some one provide sample Affidevit form for Income proof, where i can show all my liabilities . and please confirm whom we need to contact to make Affidevit.

Thank you.