25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

sanni (business)     06 June 2014

Dv case

Sir,my aunty(mami) has filled dv case against my uncle(mamaji) and another 8 family members.recently in this court has ordered to my uncle to give 3000 per month to my aunt.sir my uncle is unemployed and 8th class pass while my aunty is graduate and no property is at the name of my uncle.my grandfather(nanaji) has two diffrent property.can she claim on the properties which are at the name of my granfather while he stay with my another uncle?should he go to higher court regarding this matter?may it be beneficial to go higher court?


 11 Replies

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     06 June 2014

Dear Sanni She can not claim any property share in your grandfather's property. she can claim only right to residence if these properties are her matrimonial home or your uncle is residing in there. no need to worry. feel free to call
1 Like

Rocky Smith (Instructor @ Calcutta (rockysmith4calcutta@gmail.com))     06 June 2014

If your uncle is unemployed and only 8th passed then how the court can award 3000/- p.m. as maintenance?


This is a great injustice.


You should appeal(Criminal Writ) in High Court.


May be she have submitted some fake income source of your uncle and any other false submissions. If so then file Perjury in the same court where the DV is going on.


Please see my post bellow link for details: -



1 Like

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     08 June 2014

The court passes such orders on the basis of the proposition that if the wife was staying with such man, he would still be providing for her. An able bodied man is liable to maintain his wife.


Though, I have mostly voiced my concerns about misuse of laws, one thing I fail to understand is how so many people are unemployed but still their parents got them married, and kept providing for them for many years. If they were providing for the husband and wife till the time wife left the home, won't it be justified that they continue to provide for such women even after that?


As the law stands, the lady in this particular case can get right of residence in the house of the grandfather of the querist.


Shonee Kapoor

If you don't fight for what you want, don't cry for what you LOST.
1 Like

Harrassed _by _498a (Executive)     09 June 2014

if husband is ready to live with her but not in the current state, but out of town, then wife can also claim residence in Husband Mother's Property.

What is matrimonial home ?

Pawan Kumar (qwe)     10 June 2014

The Husband has to maintain the wife as per the law.

Harrassed _by _498a (Executive)     10 June 2014

Correcting Mr Pawan husband is bound to maintain his wife only if she is incapable of maintaining herself on her own. There are lots of judgement on this where court has said we are here for justice and when we are talking about gender equality, we cant do injustice with Husband.

In case wife falsely say that she is not capable etc etc then you have to prove her capabilities.


And generally when husband and wife income are almost same, no need of maintenance will arise. read judgements on google. 




Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     15 November 2014

It appears that total fact fo the case cannot be reproduced by you here.  Meet a lawyer nearest to you.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     15 November 2014




Kaatu Poochi (Kaatu Poochi&Co)     18 November 2014

You got a fraud Justice. Go appeal!

Unemployed man can not be forced to pay Maintenance.

No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women Qualified for job, woman denied maintenance by court.

Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009      Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. v. The State & Anr.  
Date of Reserve: 9th August, 2010
Date of Order: 27th August, 2010
+Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009
  Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors.        ... Petitioner
      Through: Dr. Naipal Singh, Advocate
  The State & Anr.                ... Respondents
       Through: Mr. O.P.Saxena, APP for the State
      With Mr. Gajraj Singh, SI
 Mr. K.C.Jain, Adv. for the Complainant/Wife
 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?        Yes.
 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assails an order of interim maintenance under  The Protection of Women from  Domestic Violence  Act, 2005 (in short Domestic Violence Act)  passed by the learned MM  on 16th January, 2008  and confirmed by the learned  Additional Sessions Judge in appeal by order dated 29th February, 2008.
 2.    The petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian, working in  Luanda,  Angola  in Africa as a Manager.  He came to India  taking leave from his job for marriage.  Marriage between the petitioner and respondent  no.2/wife was settled through matrimonial advertisement.  The respondent wife was MA (English) and MBA.  As per her bio-data sent before marriage, she was doing job with a Multinational Company.  The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14th May, 2007 at a Farmhouse in Vasant Kunj and was got registered on 25th May, 2007.  The parties lived together for a limited period of 10 days i.e. from 15th May, 2007 to 19th May, 2007 and from 2nd June to 6th  June, 2007.  While the allegations of husband are  that marriage failed within 3 weeks since  the wife was suffering from a chronic disease about which no information was given to him  before marriage  and a fraud was played.  The allegations made by wife were as usual of dowry demand and harassment.   Since the marriage did not succeed,  the husband/petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage  as  null and void and the wife  first  filed an FIR against the husband under Section 498A/406 IPC and then filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.
3.    It is not relevant for the purpose of this petition  to go into the details of allegations and counter allegations made  by each other.  Suffice it to say that the learned MM passed an order dated 16th  January, 2008 directing husband to pay an interim maintenance of  ` 5000/- pm to the wife.  He fixed this maintenance without considering the contentions raised by the husband  (as is stated in the order)  that  the husband  lost his job in Angola  (Africa) where he was working  before marriage because his passport was seized by police  and he could not join his duties back.  After marriage he remained  in India, he was not employed.  In  the appeal,  learned Additional Session Judge noted the contentions raised by the husband that he had become jobless because of the circumstances as stated by him and  he had no source of income,  he was not even able to maintain himself and had incurred  loan,  but observed that since the petitioner had earlier worked abroad as  Sales Manager  and  in view  of the  provisions of  Domestic Violence Act,  he had the  responsibility to maintain  the  wife and monetary  relief  was  necessarily  to be provided to  the aggrieved person i.e. wife.  He observed that the wife was not able to maintain herself therefore husband,  who  earned handsomely  in past while working abroad, was liable to pay 5000/- pm to the wife as fixed by the learned MM.
 4.    A perusal of Domestic Violence Act  shows  that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance.  It only enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws.  While, the Act specifies  the duties and functions of protection officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband  or the duties of  wife.  Thus,  maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife.  Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, Hindu Marriage Act,  Section 125 Cr.P.C  -  a husband is supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of the income which he earns.  No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not.   Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife,  more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage.  If the husband was BSc.  and Masters  in Marketing Management from Pondicherry University,  the wife was MA  (English) & MBA.  If  the  husband was working as a Manager abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also working in an MNC in India.  Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by the Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband being employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the passport of the husband was seized, he was not permitted to leave country, (the bail was given with a condition that he shall keep visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is contrary to law and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act. 
 5.  We are living in an era of equality of s*xes.  The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of s*x, caste and creed.  An unemployed husband,  who is holding an  MBA degree,  cannot be treated differently  to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree.  Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed.  As far as  dependency  on parents is concerned,  I consider that once  a person is  grown up,  educated  he  cannot  be asked to beg and  borrow from the parents and maintain  wife.  The parents had done their duty of educating them and  now  they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves.
  6.    It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence.  Marriages do fail for various other reasons.  The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in Courts.  Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in marriages and in averments made before the Courts.
7.    I therefore find that the order  dated 16th  January, 2008 passed by the learned MM and order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge  fixing maintenance without there being any prima  facie proof of the husband being employed  are  not tenable  under  Domestic
Violence Act.  The petition is allowed.   The orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby set aside.


August 27,  2010               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
Source :

Kaatu Poochi (Kaatu Poochi&Co)     19 November 2014

In your grand father property your uncle is the on of the member so she can claim residence rights to the property. But she not eligible to receive the maintenance one un-employed person, Without income proof how the court can pass the order, It's seems Indian legal system corrupted.

Kaatu Poochi (Kaatu Poochi&Co)     19 November 2014

Bombay High Court:- No maintenance u/s 125 CrPC of Wife is able to maintain herself

Bombay High Court
1 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
Shabnam Badri  …Applicant(Orig. Applicant)
Shabbir Badri  …Respondent(Orig.Respdt.)
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Applicant
Mr. Shoib Menon  for Respondent No.1
Shabbir Badri      …Applicant(Orig. Respondent)

Shabnam Badri       …Respondent(Orig.Applicant)
Mr. Shoib Menon for Applicant
Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Respondent No.1
DATED  : 11TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :
1. The   Criminal  Revision  Application  No.435   of   2012  had
appeared on board on 14th December, 2012 since the applicant
husband was not present it has been dismissed.  It is restored to
hear both the parties, the husband and wife on merits.
2. The husband is a Seaman.   His cross examination shows
that he was a Radio Officer till 1998.  In 2005 he became a Chief
Officer.  Thereafter he was the Master of Ship until 2010.  His
job was on contract basis.   He could not produce  the written
contract.  He claims to be earning about Rs. 1 lakh.  He has not
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
2 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
produced any documentary evidence to show that fact. He was
asked   about   this  in  his   evidence.     He   failed   to   produce   the
documents   of   service   showing   his   emoluments.     He   instead
produced his income tax returns.  His salary is in US dollars.  It
is tax free.  It would not be reflected in income tax returns.  His
income   tax   returns   would   show   income   otherwise   from   his
salary.   His income tax returns show only the first page of the
returns   without   any   annexures   showing   the   computation   of
income.  It is shown only to be rejected.  His income tax returns
do not carry his case any further.
3. The husband claims that he lost his job.  This would have
to be proved by showing the bank account of the earning whilst
he   admittedly   was   a  master  of     ship   and   then   to   show  the
continuance of that bank account having no credits.  That is not
4. The   evidence   has   considered   certain   insurance   policies.
The husband in his cross examination has admitted that he had
a Current Bank Account in HSBC Bank, UK. He corrected to state
that that was a  Midland bank and then corrected to state that
he did not recollect the bank account.   He admitted that he had
HSBC NRE Bank    account  at Fort.   He  admitted  that he had
HSBC  NRO   Bank   account  at  Bandra(W),   Branch.     He  has   a
saving account with ICICI Bank at Mira Road Branch and he has
ICICI   Bank   account   with   Santacruz   Branch.     He   refused   to
produce the statements of the bank account.  He accepted that
some of them are of joint accounts.  He also accepted that he has
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
3 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
a  shop which  he  has  disposed  of  for Rs.4 lakhs  after  having
purchased it for Rs. 5 lakhs.  Such real estate value has had no
parallel in  Mumbai.
5. His case of income has to be seen only from his admitted
employment position as the Master of the Ship.  The wife claims
that  he  would  be   earning  Rs.5  lakhs.     He   claims  that  he  is
earning only Rs. 1 lakh.   The learned Judge has considered a
reasonable figure based upon an analysis of what he earns. That
would have to be accepted by the Court.
6.   The husband’s evidence is seen to be wholly evasive and
dishonest.  The husband who is the Master of Ship is bound and
liable to maintain his wife who is a school teacher.  The husband
has   shown   his   bank   account   having   paltry   figures   as   bank
balance.  From   cross  examination it  would  show   and  suggest
that there is another account in which his entire salary has been
credited.  No such bank account is shown.
7. He has deposed that he used to obtain his salary in cash or
cheques depending on situation.
8. The   husband   contends   that   he   was   asked   in   the   cross
examination  and  he  has  produced  thereupon  his  continuance
discharge  certificate  which  would  show  that  he  was  actually
employed for only a few months each year.   The husband has
tendered his continuance certificate to this Court also.  There are
entries of certain years showing certain months in which he was
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
4 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
under  contract.    The  entries  are  for  the years  2001  to  2010
showing  him as Chief Officer and Master.  These entries are for
about six months at a time.
9. Persons on offshore jobs are given allowance during  the
period when  they  are  on  shore.   These  allowances would  be
lesser  than while  they work offshore while  they are on actual
duties.   The husband has not shown his offshore   emoluments
during his contractual period of his service.
10. The   husband   has   shown   that   he   has   to   incur   personal
expenses of Rs.2 lakhs p.m whilst he is on offshore.  Hence his
income would be at least more than Rs. 2 lakhs.  The learned
Judge has computed the income of the husband upon rational
11. It is seen that the husband has also produced statements of
his   mutual   funds.     There   are   various   investments   in   mutual
funds.   They   are   in   tax   relief   fund–dividend   payout   option,
SBMPP – dividend option etc.  The husband also has individual
health insurance policy which is also required for tax relief.
12. The wife is a School Teacher.  She has also not produced
her   salary   slips.   Her   salary   has   only   been   stated   like   her
husband’s.     Both   have   given   figures   of   the   salary   allegedly
earned  and  thought  to  be  earned.    Both  such  figures  per  se
cannot be accepted.  The learned Judge has computed her salary
also.  That also would, therefore,  have to be accepted.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
5 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
13. The   wife’s  parental  home  is  at  Khar.     Her matrimonial
home is in Mira Road.  She went to reside in Mira Road.  She
could not reside because  there were no servants  to assist her.
She has many servants in her father’s house.  She went back to
her parental house and refused to go back to her matrimonial
home.  It would have  to be seen whether it is justified  for  the
wife   of   a   Master   of   the   ship   to   expect   to   have   a   domestic
assistant by way of a maid.  For the wife of a Clerk that same
would be unjustified.  These basic differences are required to be
kept in mind.
14. Oblivious of  that difference,  the husband claims  that he
has called his wife to stay in his home but the wife refused to
stay and hence she is not entitled to maintenance.  The analogy
is incorrect and must be rejected.
15. The   evidence   of   the   wife   shows   that   she   uses   a   car
purchased by the Respondent.   That would show the status of
the  respondent.   The respondent has given a car, but not  the
maintenance  amount.   Hence  she was  constrained  to  sue  for
16. It is seen that the husband has not fully shown his income
as also his investments.  However the wife has also not shown
her income  as  a  teacher.    Adverse inference  must  be  drawn
against both the parties.
::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
6 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
17. The   wife   has  only   shown   the   expenses  of   the  children
whose custody she has.  The parties have two children they are
in VIII standard and IX standard.  They attend Leelawati Poddar
High   School.     The   term   fees   per   child   is   in   a   range   of
Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.24,500/­.
18. The   learned   Judge   has   considered   how   the   wife   can
maintain   herself.     He   has   also   considered   that   parties   lived
together only for 9 months during 6 to 7 years of marriage after
which   the   wife   went   to   her   father’s   flat   where   she   lives   in
reasonable luxury.     She  went  for  vacations  to  various  places
enumerated in the order in India as well as abroad.  She looked
after financial affairs of her husband in his absence.  She refused
to give her marriage another chance after being supported by
her community elders.   She has also not  filed her income  tax
returns and has suppressed her material facts of income.   The
learned Judge has considered the fallout of various visits abroad
whilst she is a school teacher.  The learned Judge has reasonably
considered the suppression by both the parties, the income and
investments  of   both   the  parties,   and   their  usual  standard   of
19. The learned Judge has considered the respective salaries of
the parties and granted maintenance based upon the aforesaid
evidence  of  Rs.10,000/­  each  to  the  children.      The learned
Judge has not granted any maintenance  to  the wife who is a
school teacher.

::: Downloaded on – 15/03/2013 16:42:03 :::Bombay High Court
7 CR.REVN.APLN.106/2013(1)
20. The conclusion of the learned Judge that she is capable of
maintaining  herself  cannot  be  faulted.    Hence  the impugned
order   cannot   be   interfered   with   in   her   criminal   revision
application.  Similarly the payment of maintenance only for the
children  which  is  also   challenged  by  the  husband  cannot   be
faulted in view of his shown and suppressed earnings.
21. Of course this is only in the petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C   where   the   wife   must   show   that   she   cannot   maintain
herself.  She would be entitled to alimony and maintenance as
per law in other proceedings between the husband and wife.
22. For  the expenses  she claims  for her children Rs.10000/­
per month  each granted to the children is seen to be reasonable.
23. Consequently   the   impugned   order   which   has   been
challenged by both the parties does not require any interference.
Both the petitions are dismissed.
24. The   husband   shall   forthwith   pay   all   the   arrears   of
maintenance already granted.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query