LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     15 April 2012

Don't ask for your wife's companionship,if you are poor

Destitute husband cannot seek wife's company, rules HC



A husband who wants his wife to live with him must first prove that he can maintain her, the Bombay high court has said while deciding the petition filed by a city-based woman seeking permanent maintenance.

"The husband should first show that he is capable of maintaining his wife, 


and then demand her company," justice Roshan Dalvi observed while remanding back the wife's plea seeking permanent maintenance. "No husband who fails to maintain his wife can have the right to demand his conjugal rights," the judge added.


The woman had approached the court after a family court at Bandra rejected her plea seeking permanent maintenance in September 2010 on the grounds that she had left matrimonial home for no reasonable cause and allowed her husband's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.

The couple had tied the knot in 2006, but, according to the wife, within a few days of the marriage, family members started harassing her for more dowry, after which she returned to her parents' home.

The family court had, however, accepted the claim of her husband that her allegations of harassment for dowry were false, and therefore there was no need for her to leave the matrimonial home.

The husband claimed he and earned Rs3,000 per month, of which justice Dalvi observed: "His position as a husband is, therefore, precarious… The husband is hardly eligible to marry, to keep a wife, to make a family and even more ineligible to demand that his wife returns home when he claims to earn only Rs3,000 pm."

The judge also observed that the husband was living with a joint family in a shanty-like home admeasuring 125 square feet.

The court has remanded the woman's plea for permanent maintenance back to the family court for determining the quantum of maintenance. Until then, her husband has been directed to pay her Rs1,000 per month towards interim maintenance.




 15 Replies

Kumar (Family CEO)     15 April 2012

The above may be the ( current ) take of Indian laws. In US, neither husband or wife ( equals) can be turned destitute by the other parties act, if they do ,they can booked under Criminal Penal Code for "SPOUSAL ABANDONMENT" and court can restrain such behaviour.

In the above article, IMHO, Justice Dalvi has no business to "observe" that husbands situation is precarious based on his Rs 3000 income and 125 sq ft home. In a country of 1 billion plus people, there are at least more than 10 Million -intact- families that are running on one mans income which may be way less than Rs 1000 per month and have less than 8 square feet to live .

The average rural annual income per a internation study in India is around Rs 35K per year which averages to approx Rs 3000 per month. 

In this case, I beleive that it is in the good interest of the destitute husband that the marriage was dissolved as the women has all the traits of a lose spouse and mother. There will  be many a takers for this man earning Rs 3000 and 125 sq ft home. 


1 Like

kumar101 (clerk)     15 April 2012

God knows, where these judge's are getting the idea's from. If husband can't feed his wife, shouldn't the wife pitch-in and helf her husband by working(even petty job) instead of disolving the marriage.

1 Like

satya (Manager)     15 April 2012

in this era of equality why it is demanded that only husband is bound to maintain the family. Male and female both form a family and they must be jointly responsible to maintain the family. Honable judge may survey our country that about 70 percent women in india doing some commercial work. Now we need to decide our social values/system once again.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     15 April 2012

  1. isn't a lady supposed to stand by her husband in good and bad times 
  2. aren't these supposed to be our indian values,and more so,marriage values?


judges are ensuring these values do not survive any more..


btw,this lady must have known that he lives in a small ,congested house with a meagre income.then why did she marry him if she did not like his lifestyle?

3 Like

Jamai Of Law (propra)     15 April 2012

Yaaa............... that seems the general idea!!!




If husband gives away everything he may have but still the wife is unhappy then!!!!! ........................... Even a billionaire would not be able to satisfy wife's demands




It is no longer a marriage ......... whay to have farse on 7 steps and costs of ceremonies if it is a commercial relationship !!!



Institution of marriage is no longer there  ................  Its a use and throw culture!!!!




satya (Manager)     15 April 2012

who may be get married, must be decided by sciety owners. love  affecion is no more available in society. 

vishnu (EE)     15 April 2012

Such judgements are shocking and surprising. It appears that the judje has done beyond call of duty to make onservations that “Destitute husband cannot seek wife's company

The onus of running a family lie equally on both husband and wife. In a conventional set up of Indian society the wife has been given entrusted with the family chores and child upbringing. But this is no more a case. The female class is on equal footing and shares responsibility of family financially. Even under HMA 1955 the husband is entitle to claim maintenance from wife having better earning capacity.

The judgement is against natural justice. This judgement equates/counts scarce relationship to money as if, a man having full wallet is entitle to go to pros.

1 Like

sri (ceo)     15 April 2012

absurd and half literate judge ment...

funny part is that the judges are not even aware of financial dealings, economy or even minimum wages or for that matter even the bpl...

can be thrown in dustbin in sc...

Kumar (Family CEO)     15 April 2012

Please send me the Judges name and office address. I will sue him in the international court of human rights. This ruling can be sensationalised internationally. 

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     15 April 2012

But this is a good judgment, no one should be allowed to take the course of justice for a ride, even if such a person is the husband.





Shonee Kapoor


2 Like

manno (owner)     16 April 2012

Roshni ..it seems like you have multiple profiles. you use the others tp harrass and intimidate people. You're a horrible person.

1 Like

sri (ceo)     16 April 2012

the funny part is india is backward because of half women population lying at home and not working... they are not just liability for husbands they are also liabilities for super power india...

its not right to pass such stupid judgments after marriage ...

but be a condition before marriage if any one is willing to marry...

people start breeding cows and dogs rather than such liabilities...

half heart attack problems and men die earlier is this for reason only... unbearable stress at office and at home...


bhima balla (none)     05 May 2012

By extension 60% of India must be disqualified from getting married. Let there be early implementation of such laws. Anyone earning less than so and so must not get married and such and such folks above this can get married but cannot have children if they are earning less than so and so etc etc! Else , they must be permannetly jailed! Also shouldn't the 'poor' guy be granted immediate divorce? Also what will the wife do with Rs 1000/- interim?

The case is a indication of the effect of pathetic  'woman empowerment' laws.

sri (ceo)     05 May 2012

if 60% is disqualified for marriage... it mean 60% rise in adultery and prostitution cases...

now we have another problem... already there is no punishment for the b*tch who sleeps around...

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads