Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     18 November 2009

NO ALIMONY IF WOMAN WALKS OUT ON OWN ACCOUNT: SC

Dear All,
 

The following appeared in  "Hindustan Times", Mumbai Edition on November 18,2009, page no. 03.

 

Personally, I think, the SC logic can be used to counter return-dowry claims etc, besides the claim of maintainence.

 

May be useful for future references.

 

Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal

 

NO ALIMONY IF WOMAN WALKS OUT ON OWN ACCOUNT: SC

 


A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.

 

Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?
 

What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.

 

She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 

Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.

 

A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.

 

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.

Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?


What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.

 

She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 

 

Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.

 

A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
 



Learning

 18 Replies

Kamal Grover (Advocate High Court Chandigarh M:09814110005 email:adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com)     18 November 2009

Hemant ji,

Thanks it is a good judgment but plz also send the case name and detail.

Regards

sanjogita (secretary)     18 November 2009

i do agree with this judgement, but considering some another case, i want to ask that what if the husband is totally depended on the wife salary and do not want to give his salary for household needs, if he wants his wife to do job, give whole salary and also do all the household work and no respect to her from her inlaws and husbandand iss treating her, on this basis, if she walks out herself and demands only for the material that she got from her parents in her marriage such as gas cylinder, cupboard , utensils and gifts from the relatives, is she liable to get that things from him after divorce?  If she dont want to file a case for these things then are there any other ways to get the things from him, if the divorce is to be set on mutual consent. Please reply.

1 Like

Anjali (IT)     18 November 2009

an excellent judgement.  There should be some sort of punishment to those kind of woman who went upto supreme court to get money from husband.

Riya (ABC)     18 November 2009

What happens to a woman who has to leave the house because of physical abuse by her husband? You cannot continue to stay in the house and how can anyone be forced to stay with a husband who is psychic?

1 Like

BP SHARMA Adv (LAW CONSULTANT)     18 November 2009

 Dear Sanjogite

You raised a good question. While giving consent for mutual divorce she can well ask for the return of the household articles got by her from her parents , friends and relatives at the time of her marriage as a condition precedent for mutual divorce.

Md.Anwarul Haque Danish (None)     19 November 2009

Originally posted by :Hemant Agarwal

" Dear All,
 
The following appeared in  "Hindustan Times", Mumbai Edition on November 18,2009, page no. 03.
 
Personally, I think, the SC logic can be used to counter return-dowry claims etc, besides the claim of maintainence.
 
May be useful for future references.
 
Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal
 
NO ALIMONY IF WOMAN WALKS OUT ON OWN ACCOUNT: SC
 

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.
 
Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?
 
What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.
 
She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 
Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.
 
A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
 
A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.
Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?

What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.
 
She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 
 
Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.
 
A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
 
"

 

Hello dear,

Kamal Grover

Advocate High Court, Chandigarh M:09814110005 email:adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com

I'm attaching herewith a scanned copy of the Newspaper article, there is no mention of the people's names or citation.

 

Incese you find the judgment plz forward the same to me.

 

Thanks and regards,

Anwar.

 

 


Attached File : 33 33 ht 18nov09 sc no allowance to deserter wife.rar downloaded: 657 times

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     20 November 2009

HEMANT EXCELLANT JUDGMENT

Kuldeep (operation )     20 November 2009

hi this is kuldeep thx for good news can u pls send me judgment  copy at my id kumarralh@yahoo.com pls?? i am also suffering same type of case my wife also left the home and now she put a case for maintance pls sugest me now wht i do next ???

 

thx

kuldeep

 

 

MVenuSwara (Others)     04 December 2009

Mr Kamal Grover, it is a case which was dismissed by Punjab & Haryana Court in 2003 and u being at P&H could help the members to seek the details of the parties viz petitioner and respondent, etc.  Request make some efforts to help the needy.

WITH THE HOPE.

Thanx, regds

 

Kuldeep (operation )     04 December 2009

Dear All,  

CAN U PLS SEND ME JUDGMENT OF THIS BELOW CASE  if any any body hv this judgment thne plse mail me at my id kumarralh@yahoo.com  thx rgds


 

The following appeared in  "Hindustan Times", Mumbai Edition on November 18,2009, page no. 03.

 

Personally, I think, the SC logic can be used to counter return-dowry claims etc, besides the claim of maintainence.

 

May be useful for future references.

 

Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal

 

NO ALIMONY IF WOMAN WALKS OUT ON OWN ACCOUNT: SC

 


A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.

 

Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?
 

What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.

 

She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 

Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.

 

A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.

 

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she walks out of her matrimonial home willingly, the Supreme Court has said.

Dismissing a woman's petition seeking Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance from her former husband, a bench headed by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar on Monday said: "You left the matrimonial home on your own and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country?


What is the justification for your staying separately?" The court upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying maintenance to the petitioner. The woman had left her matrimonial home and children in Jind, Haryana, in 1998, accusing her husband of demanding dowry.

 

She then moved a local court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights. In 2003, the court dismissed her plea for separation.
 

 

Despite a judicial order, she did not return to her husband.

 

A year later, the woman approached the court again, asking for divorce and maintenance. Her divorce plea was granted, but her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
 

anand (legal advisor)     18 December 2009

ya according to me its her stri dhan and she can claim them at any point of time even during the sustenence of th emarriage and thus a civil suit to claim movable property will be enough if not given to her mutually

1 Like

Avnish Kaur (Consultant)     16 January 2011

SC- 'No alimony for woman who desert husband'

 
Here is the full text of the Punjab & Haryana HC judgment upheld by SC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)

POONAM   …PETITIONER

VERSUS

MAHENDER KUMAR   …RESPONDENT


Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)


Present:           Mr.P.L. Goyal,  Advocate,  for the  petitioner.

                       Mr. S.D. Bansal,  Advocate, for the  respondent.

Marriage of Poonam (petitioner) with Mohinder Kumar (respondent) took place on 23.1.1998. Two sons were born out of the wedlock, who are residing with the respondent. The petitioner is residing with her parents. A case under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 149/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent and others vide F.I.R. No.52 dated 17.2.2000 at Police Station City, Jind. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as vthe Code') claiming maintenance from the respondent alleging that he was running wholesale business of sale and purchase of utensils in the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Metal Store and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. This petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner left her matrimonial house on her own accord and that she was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month as she was M.A.B.Ed. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind, vide order dated 9.6.2007 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code. The petitioner went in revision against the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, although holding that the husband has not been able to prove that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and, at the  same  time,   affirming  the  finding    recorded    by  the     trial Magistrate that the petitioner-wife left the company of the respondent on her own accord. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code by the petitioner seeking reversal of the orders passed by both the Courts below.

I have heard Mr.P.L. Goyal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and  have gone through the records of the case.

The trial Magistrate, after framing issues, recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Except her statement, the petitioner failed to examine any other witness in support of her case to prove ill-treatment, dowry demand and other allegations made in the petition. Even the parents of the petitioner did not come forward to support her case. The petitioner failed to join her husband even after the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, was declined by the Court by holding that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent, rather the petitioner deserted her husband due to her own personal reasons. The petitioner did not take care of her sons, who are residing with the respondent. There is no allegation in the petition that she had ever asked the respondent for giving her the custody of the sons. The petitioner appears to be interested only  in  getting maintenance allowance and  taking divorce from the respondent. The respondent is solely taking care of the children. To bring up two children single handedly is an onerous duty, which the respondent is performing and the petitioner is shirking. The petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that after she left her matrimonial house, she never tried to contact the respondent or her kids. In the case of Smt.Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. Failure of the petitioner-wife to prove sufficient grounds justifying her staying away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in declining the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code.

In view of the  above,    the present petition   is  dismissed being  without any merit.

March  19  , 2009.  

(   MOHINDER  PAL )
ak    JUDGE

---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
Case Status  DISPOSED 
Status of : Special Leave Petition (Criminal)    8854    Of   2009 
POONAM   .Vs.   MAHENDER KUMAR 
Pet. Adv. : MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR ASHRI 
Subject Category : CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. 
Date of Disposal : 16/11/2009 
Last updated on Sep 10 2010  Click Here for Latest Order        
  NIC
......
ITEM NO.31                   Court No.10             SECTION IIA
             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009
                                             CRLMP.NO(s). 18899
(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM No.
24684/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
POONAM                                                Petitioner(s)
                   VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR                                        Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) CRLMP 18899/2009 c/delay in filing SLP
Date: 16/11/2009    This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
For Petitioner(s)     Mr. S.N.Pandey, Adv.
                      Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R
              Delay condoned.
              The special leave petition is dismissed.
           (Shashi Sareen)                       (Shashi Bala Vij)
             Court Master                           Court Master
…………………..

'No alimony for woman who desert husband'

New Delhi, Nov 18 , 2010, DHNS:
In an observation with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court has said that a woman who deserted her husband and the matrimonial home and refused to return despite repeated requests was not entitled to maintenance.
Upholding a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a bench headed by Justice V S Sirpurkar said the law of the land did not allow maintenance in cases where the wife deserted her husband, children and the matrimonial home.
 
In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Poonam, who was married to Mahender Kumar of Jind on January 23, 1992, left her matrimonial home on March 18, 1998, alleging harassment and dowry demands. She also left her children.
Poonam later moved the family court, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. But Mahender Kumar filed an application before the court on February 20, 2002, praying for restoration of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
She did not respond to the application, and Kumar was granted ex parte decree as it was construed that Poonam would not return to her matrimonial home.
Fresh appeal
Two years later, Poonam approached the family court again, seeking divorce — on the ground that she was living separately — and demanding maintenance.
Though the court granted her divorce, her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
The Supreme Court bench said: “You left the matrimonial home on your own, and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country? What is the justification for your staying separately?”
No ill-treatment
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Poonam challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, seeking maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month from Mahender.
The high court judgment said she had failed to prove that she was ill-treated by her former husband. Additionally, the court observed: “Failure of the petitioner-wife to justify her decision to stay away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left society of the respondent on her own accord.”
 
 
ITEM NO.31                   Court No.10             SECTION IIA


             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009
                                             CRLMP.NO(s). 18899

(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM No.
24684/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

POONAM                                                Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

MAHENDER KUMAR                                        Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) CRLMP 18899/2009 c/delay in filing SLP

Date: 16/11/2009    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY


For Petitioner(s)     Mr. S.N.Pandey, Adv.
                      Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.


see SUPREME COURT LINK


https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/pr%201889909p.txt

(Guest)

Quite helpful discussion and case law for the innocent husbands.

1 Like

Raajeev Sampat. (Self employed.)     15 November 2011

Is this an applicable law as of to date?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register