LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     02 February 2012

Hc refuses maintenance to wealthy woman



A woman's plea, seeking maintenance for herself from her former husband has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court on the ground that she had "sufficient means to maintain herself".

A bench of Justice Suresh Kait gave its order on a plea by Central Delhi resident Neelam Khanna (name changed), against a sessions court order, which had set aside a magisterial court order to her former husband V P Sharma to give her an interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month.

"During her cross-examination, in the petition seeking maintenance, the petitioner, while asserting that she is living on mercy of relatives and friends, has failed to name even a single person from whom she had taken debt or loan. This proves that she has sufficient means to maintain herself," said Justice Kait.

Khanna had told the high court that the sessions court had failed to consider that she is unemployed and is not earning her livelihood. She had further said the lower court had also ignored her submission that her husband is having rental income from various properties.

Sharma, however, opposed his former wife's plea pointing out that she had made him part with a flat and shop in South Delhi in 2002 as per a deal for divorce with mutual consent and she was having sufficient income to maintain herself.

As per the deal, she was not to claim any maintenance for rest of her life after the divorce, which she gave him after securing a major chunk of his properties, said Sharma.

"With mutual consent, we both separated from each other in 2003. The petitioner was even given equal shares in the property," said Sharma's counsel.

Sharma's counsel told the court that Khanna sold the shop and the flat, given to her by Sharma, and purchased a double storied building in Central Delhi, from which she is getting a rent of around Rs 40,000 per month.

He said the petitioner is living lavishly in contrast to her former husband, who has been forced to live in an unauthorised colony and that too on rent.
"The petitioner backtracked from the said settlement and continued with the litigation vigorously," the counsel said.

"The petitioner has concealed the fact that just before filing this petition mentioned above, she got admitted her adopted daughter to a prestigious, high-end public school and is spending more than Rs 30,000 per month on her," Justice Kait said, 
while upholding the session court observation that there is no mode of recovery if later on it is found that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself.

Endorsing the sessions court order, Justice Kait also said Khanna has enough means to maintain herself, as she is living in her own house, whose monthly rental is Rs 80,000 whereas respondent is living in a rented house in an unauthorised colony whose rental is Rs 8,000 per month.

"Moreover, she is running a nursing home in the basement of property in South Delhi, whose monthly rent is Rs 25,000 per month," the court observed.


 9 Replies


Wife's own house monthly rentle is 80000 /-and husband's monthly rentle is 8000/-.Itna kiraya  hota he kya 80000?

plus she is running nursing home whose monthly rentle is 25000/- so think how her montly income is ?


Zeeshan in his profile quote ;A successful man is one who earns more than his wife can spend; a successful woman is one who marries such a man. 

But here A successful woman( Metro ) is one who earns more than her husband  can spend; a successful man is one who marries such a women. ;) AND suppose She files maintenance case then husband doesnt have to pay monthly maintenance.;)No burdern ,no imprisonment only pleasure. Only use rainbow glasses !

Ranee....... (NA)     02 February 2012

There should be a moneymeter to measure the greed/need of man/woman before marriage.This will help people from false cases or becoem successful in life.

In LCI it has become a rule to dominate female members or members who support women.Be it right or wrong.When a woman asks about child custody, or maintenance she cross examined here, taught lessons and tried to make feel that she is wrong. 

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     02 February 2012

Originally posted by :Ranee.......
" In LCI it has become a rule to dominate female members or members who support women. Be it right or wrong.When a woman asks about child custody, or maintenance she cross examined here, taught lessons and tried to make feel that she is wrong.  "

@ Ranee aka Utpala

1. "Emotions" + "Sentiments" does not go long way before Family Law.

2. Thus 'hydraulic powers of metro wife" also does not sustain for long before Law.

3. Further playing same ghisa pitta “LP record of abv. 1 and 2 by time pass metro wives writers” all the times for time pass per se also does not help in increase and decrease of membership of LCI legal portal website.

ratio decidendi:

A. If your ladyship having done LLB has any value addition to make in any post at LCI and more specific to this post of yours truely 'Cinderella' then pause and make it or else watch Discovery Channel to get better ideas for profile pics. (avatar) change the nest time ........

PS: before you pop your rebutal; my value addition to this post is specifically mentioned under above para 1 and 2 from where above
ratio decidendi popped hope 'rainbow glasses' are not used by you to read harmonious meaning thus maintain harmonity at portal sites instead of raking time and gain time pass comments reason being neither you nor I can be CJI and or owner of LCI to then and there delete such posts ! Hai ki nahi atleast I am sure of my career graph think yours now.........

ta ra rum pum pum.......


Admin / Mods. of LCI:
Kindly issue rights for moderation of posts under Family Law to yours truely
@ Ranee aka Utpala and then see a sea change (in membership dropping)

3 Like



"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you finally leave the forum for few days" By: Swami dhinka chika.



tum kab sudhroge?ladkiyon ko mat chidao!abhi tumahara ye sab karne ka umar chala gaya.


you are really looking beautiful in this profile picture.Tajjubhai fida ho gaye hain..uska na eyesight thoda kum ho gaya hain ..if you dont believe me then check his profile..nothing is clear.

again tajjubhai, don't scan old photos so much.....scanner bhi case file karega tum par..

buddha hain...par naya hain!!

Again Ranee, tajjubhai maangta hain ki tum woh purana fulsize profile pic phir se lagao..kyun tajjubhai...;)

hain ki nehi?

Ranee....... (NA)     03 February 2012

ha ha 


. "Emotions" + "Sentiments" does not go long way before Family Law.


I too wanted to tell this because this is a forum not witness box.

Thanks for comparing my photos with those in discovery channel.I want to gift you a photo 

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 February 2012

@ Utpala

Liked your opportunist sense of glass half empty or half full dry humor....

Closing statement

"heat of half monsters of Cinderella creating is now felt by her own 7 dwarfs"

BTW, I could gift you sense of Law so that you know what is gift of fear no man amidst Fortune 500 LCI ………… but that is for someother time .......... abhi gyan mei twist baki hai ........... ha aha

Ranee....... (NA)     03 February 2012

Liked your opportunist sense of glass half empty or half full dry humor....


I dont need your GYAN.If I need I will take it from all other Experts ( 153,192 -92=153,100)


I dont need your gyan that is spiced up with your frustration which need support of your followers(92).

You don't need to think of my profile, as I have seen many prudent, ld memmbers getting banned here!(and popping up with new face here)


Hey Tajji i could not understand a single word whever you say.All goes above my head everytime

helpingwindisputedcases (chairman)     27 April 2012

hellooooooooooooo here the poor husband actually deserved the alimony.i wonder why the sessions court did not take into consideration the difference b/w 25000 income plus property ownership of the woman and then compare it with the poor man who is living in a unauthorised colony on rent of only 8000.this is surprising ,please if anyone can shed some light as to why this man did not get alimony from his wife if he actually sacrificed so much for the woman had no debts and loans and had family and friends who were this case alimony should have been given to the man that is if he filed for it?to the best of my knowledge in my field it is not possible and the man was also not innocent .but this woman was not really pressing charges she was wanting more out of the booty.i am an expert at law and from what i can believe is that this woman was however not earning a living herself.ppl this case is useless and further charges could reveal much more info.matters of litigation go on forvever.however if you do need our suppport thru backdoor means like bank statements and property pers etc then refer to

Related Threads


Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query