LAW Courses
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

wife's right for interim maintenance

The excerpts of following Bombay H.C. judgment shows how some of the husbands tell lies out of their teeth before hon'ble courts and how paltry income earned by wife cannot prohibit her to seek maintenance.

 
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

Writ Petition No.5338 of 2009

Anup Avinash Varadpande .. .. Petitioner v/s.

Anusha Anup Varadpande .. .. Respondent

CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.

DATED : 11th January, 2010

ORAL ORDER :

.........

6.It is common knowledge that husbands who desire to fail and neglect to maintain their wives in consonance with their martial obligation and statutory duty to maintain them create evidence of termination of their services or contracts so soon as the marriage breaks down, parties separate or the wife makes her claim for maintenance. Production of a mere letter or order of termination of service or resignation from service cannot be relied upon or considered by the Court in the absence of proof of execution of such a document and genuineness and bona fides of its creator. There is no reason for an otherwise qualified and physically capable husband to have to be dismissed or terminated from service or to resign his job or discontinue his career. In this case, it is not surprising that the firm from which his dealership contract is terminated is shown, under an unregistered partnership deed (the kind of which that can be fabricated at any time) to belong essentially to his father and brother and the place of business of the partnership is shown to belong to his mother as shall be seen presently.

.......

9.The learned Judge has accepted the internet profile. The husband has relied upon his income-tax returns showing an annual income of about Rs.2 Lakhs which is rightly rejected as not representing his true financial status and income by the learned Judge in view of his association with as many as 4 Companies. The husband has not produced the same before this Court.

.......

11.The husband lives in a bungalow, has membership of at least one Club. He lives in affluent circumstances which fact is considered by the learned Judge. The bungalow is a family property. Though the husband has not produced the documents of purchase by the mother, he claims, upon the record of rights, that his mother is the owner.

12.The learned Judge has also considered some paltry income that the wife earns from her service as a primary school teacher in Symbiosis Primary school on temporary basis, earning Rs.5,000/- per month as reflected as in the salary slip shown by her. Mr.Warunjikar has contended that it is erroneous to consider the net income of the wife after deduction of her provident fund, etc., and that the learned Judge should have considered her gross income. The wife secured this job in 2008. The parties married on 14.10.2006. They admittedly separated in March 2007. The wife is seen to have taken the temporary job out of a constraint to earn her living. It may be mentioned that a paltry income earned by the wife, specially after separation or upon the neglect of the husband to maintain the wife, cannot be termed as her income . It is merely an amount received upon the constraint to serve to make ends meet. Such amount can hardly be considered for determining sufficiency of income.

13.What is contemplated to be income in any provision for grant of interim maintenance, be that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 7

under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other similar legislation is that the wife, of her own volition, and upon her educational or professional qualifications, pursues a settled career either by way of service or profession or business in which she derives her own independent, separate income or otherwise earns income by way of investments, rents, profits or the like from any settled source of income. The sufficiency or otherwise of such income is required to be seen and calculated to grant or reject her claim of maintenance.

14.It wold be unjust and unreasonable to disallow a woman her claim to maintenance when it is seen that she did not pursue a career or be in service during the subsistence and continuation of her marriage and had taken up a job or service only when the parties separated.

15.This phenomenon can be appreciated from another angle also. A wife, who is in service is entitled and often required, to give up her service after marriage. She is equally entitled to give up her service after the parties separate. She is entitled to make a claim for maintenance thereafter. Of course, the bona fides of such a claim would have to be seen from the facts of each case. In normal circumstances, upon such a claim being made, the husband would be obliged and bound to maintain her. In such a case, her maintenance amount would be determined based only upon the income of her husband.

16.Hence if a wife is constrained to earn in a service taken up by her to make ends meet or to survive with dignity pending the actual receipt of maintenance from her husband after following the usually labourious legal process, in our judicial system wrought with the consummate delays, she cannot be penalised for the legitimate means of earning her modest and honest livelihood. Earnings of a primary school teacher who has been neglected and failed to be maintained by a businessman husband cannot even be justified to be deducted from an amount deemed fit and reasonable to be paid to her as maintenance from the income of the husband.

17.Nevertheless, the learned Judge has considered her net income of Rs.5,000/- from her salary certificate and granted the amount of maintenance of only Rs.15,000/- per month.

18.The order is not perverse. The Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged accordingly.

(SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

 



 20 Replies

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

Mr. Prabhakar , is it possible to upload this important  judgement in knowledge sharing section, so that it would be easier for the readers to refer to it than going through innumerable threads to hunt for it.

Kiran (Consultant)     21 September 2010

There are many wives who wrongly represent that they are not having any Job inspite of having one in view of getting high interim/final maintenance amount.

@Prabhakar,

Could you please post such Judgements where wfie is at fault and was totally denied Interim/Final maintenance and upload those important judgements to knowledge sharing section?

Thanks,

Kiran

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 September 2010

@ Prabhakar,

 

1. It was nice of you as a ADVOCATE to bring this judgment to public domain.


2. Do you as a ADVOCATE have guts to bring "one single Judgment"  to public domain where any Judge has said similarly about a INDIAN WIFE who also lie about their employment / earning capacity ? NO na....


3. I bet you can't have guts because there are NONE (Judgments) in entire Indian Judiciary where any Judge has said similarly about a Indian WIFE and your postings here are revolving around commerical activities to get new clients (WIFE) (such as your earlier 498a post which at that time created stir in LCI Forum) and nothing else otherwise no other LCI member ADVOCATE brings such biasness into public domain to start chain mails and or chain postings which you all witnessed not that long ago here in LCI forum.
 

4. BTW this single bench Judgment has no value as of today and this Judgment is OVERRULED by a Division Bench and was applicable only for Maharashtra State at that point of time, today it can't be even quoted as proudly quoted by you. Get yourself corrected now !


Now, keep smiling............

1 Like

(Guest)

It is not I, but some members completely maligned the women saying that they lie in the cases pertaining to maintenance and described them with unparliamentary language, which I do not want to refer here and which they shamelessly used innumerable times.  Some of those people did not feel shy to post even district court judgment of some U.P. district (Bareilly or so), showing that wife lied before the court and exhorting the husbands to file defamation cases and perjurty cases.  If my activity is to get women clients, the people who criticise me sit before the computers 24*7*365  and solicit men clients without having any legal degree. 

The advocates who are in practice very well know that this particular barnch does not bring any monetary compensation.   It brings less money, if any advocate represents women only. The money is only in corporate law. The advocates, who are behind money go to corporate law and not bother about women's rights in medieval-modern India. On the other hand, the persons, who criticise me shamelessly attributing my commercial activity give useless advices of perjury and defamation and post dummies guide to file Section 498-A cases and  some of them run their websites with 498-A captions and are not tolerant enough if a single piece of article comes to to highlight the women's rights.  If the judgment posted by me is over-ruled, post the judgment which has over-ruled, instead of using the useless language.  A single judge's judgment of Delhi High Court is repeatedly pasted scores of times by some members on this website which is pro-man, but this fellow became silent and stir up when a judgment favouring women comes on the web-site. 

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 September 2010

"judgment shows how some of the husbands tell lies out of their teeth before hon'ble courts "


1. Oh


2. Ok


3. The point was not to irritate you and or extract nice worded post facto 'justification' but to ask you to follow your own wordings posted here in one of the threads "single bench judgments are not useful as it is overruled by division bench and further ......"  So this Judgment posted by you harmoniously construted reading with above quote / unquote is of no intrinsic value except showing off "an eye for an eye" which was the point I stressed and if you get irritated and start justifying left and right then it is your issues and not 83 K + readers issue.


4. BTW any counter justification on VI part factual article of a ld. advocate who mentions where the actual money is and to refresh you see at your leisure the six part series appeared after your nice informative past "498a article" by clicking  https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Some-Specimens-of-the-Nobel-and-Learned-Profession-Part-I-23819.asp


5. Hope as a Advocate you may not get to show public display of iritation when such counter replies pops up in these interactive forums.


Best wishes to you......

2 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

What is  commercial about posting a judgement? Today I posted one supreme court judgement which is pro woman, and I am a non legal person. 

 

1 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

Read it as about posting a pro woman judgement? And how one man/woman can talk about whether something issue or not an issue with  83K+ readers? 

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

Carry on Mr. Prabhakar with your good work. There are many many among 83K+ who awaits your postings and read them with interest.

1 Like

Jamai Of Law (propra)     21 September 2010

I read the judgement. Thanks to Mr Prabhakar.

But how does it qualify to 'endorse' it as if it has become a strong caselaw and a landmark judgement to accord it a 'generic & de facto' right for wives to claim interim maintenance the next moment they are estranged from the husband?

I disagree if anyone thinks that way.

The judgement simply put light on the facts (which is worth looking at, I believe) such as ....

  • How the Wife and her lawyer argued and put her faacts infront of cout.
  • How husband and his lawyer argued and how hon. judge not appreciated his evidence of his income and felt that husband approaching with unclean hands and hiding true facts The husband lost it b'cos apparently he wud have made his weak by presenting a conflicting scenario in front of the court. This is a specific case of merits and nothing more.

 

How can we stereotyoe all husbands that all husbands indulge into such things?

 

Look at the sentences....


It is common knowledge that (only those) husbands (plural to suggest all husbands) who desire to fail to maintain their wives ...............(hence only those kind of husbands) create evidence of termination of their services or contracts so soon as the marriage breaks down, parties separate or the wife makes her claim for maintenance 

There is no reason for an otherwise qualified and physically capable husband (it refers to the husband in this case only ...It doesn't say in plural as Husbands) to have to be dismissed or terminated from service or to resign his job or discontinue his career............... (A good judgement by hon judge b'cos this individual husband indeed presented conflicting scenario and didn't deserve any favour.  But it can not be generalised to stamp all the husbands.)

 

Otherwise .......

  • No Husband Will deliberately go backrupt and incur loss in his business just to avoid likely interim maint suit of his estraged wife.
  • No husband has to take permission from his estranged wife for his moves/plans in regards to the his career or penchant for money.
  • No husband is answerable to estranged wife or even the court as to why he lost his job in recession or even if he underperformed in job as compared to other colleagues and that's how he lost his job or for whatsoever he reason. industries like travel, diamonds, IT, BPO etc people lose jobs for the reasons not under their uncontrol and b'cos of global phenomena and it is beyond anybody's imagination or purview of assessments or jurisdictions 
  • No husband is answerable to estranged wife or even the court as to How could he fall sick to lose the job or why he wants to take some time out for other activities.

it's his personal business

 

 

This is a specific case on merits and nothing more, and it's not a turning point or landmark case or 'a condition precedent'  for husbands to get frightened and for wives to make jubiliation out of it.

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 September 2010

@ To the very first replier to this thread


1. "
You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman" ~Jane Galvin Lewis


2. "
Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their opressors.
~ Evelyn Cunningham


3. "
Being a lady is an attitude. ~ Chuck Woolery, Love Connection

 

4. Readers hope, a pro-women who is non legal person has good understanding of some of the above most famous gender liberation quotes !

1 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

For me being pro woman is to have substantive equality and equity before we reach equality. 

Any quotes have their own limitations. 

That said, I do not want to indulge in anymore talk with the author who has directed his precious knowledge to a lady who is all for equity ( as against gender neutrality and formal equality) and women's legitimate rights. 

The comments which I have not replied to are those which I think are not worth any reply from the same lady.

1 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     21 September 2010

For readers: please read pro woman and pro woman judgement in the context. In the context it means equity based judgement...

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     21 September 2010

There is nothing wrong in posting any judgment, whether it is in favor of women. There are so many judgments, which do not favor women.

Justice A S Anand, who once had said that "Fight for gender equality is not a fight against men. It is a fight against traditions that have chained them ------ a fight against attitudes that are ingrained in the society --- it is a fight against the system ---- a fight against proverbial ‘Laxman Rekha’ which is different for men and different for women. The society must rise to the occasion. It must recognize and accept the fact that men and women are equal partners in life. They are individuals who have their own identity"

And finally everyone knows who is leagal person and who is not and what is legality.

 

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     22 September 2010

1. Absolutely.


2. There is no reason for stopping anyone for posting and or reading and or replying to either of sides (spouse and or persons) Judgments here or outside the forum. However what is objected in terms of keeping harmony of the LCI Family Law Forum is not to escalate recent cold issues with opening quote and un-quote such as by Prabhakar a Advocate here and reproduced here is the objection from other side to his opening quote “shows how some of the husbands tell lies out of their teeth before hon'ble courts”. It is called "an eye for an eye" ball game and remember the other side is equally too good at it too. Leave the choice to Admin. /partner of LCI Forum if he wants harmony in Family Law Forum maintained or shall give free hand to both sides to repeat the eye for eye counters of both sides as is evident from reading past messages of last 4 months culminating into Attn. Memebers "neutral" posting by Admin. for members to behave which includes Advocate members too? Decide yourself "persons".......


3. In, 1877, Nelson , a Madras Judge, expressed the view that the Hindu law administered by the Anglo-Indian Courts was a "phantom of the brain, imagined by Sanskritists without law, and lawyers wihtout Sanskrit." However, if a Gender Researcher replier here is in doubt on this apt quoting then check with Admin. / Partner of LCI forum Mr Y Prakash practicing before Madras HC if this to be the earliest truth of Common Law in Indian context oozed some 2+ centuries ago from the very same HC he is practicing before today in 21st. Century !

 

 

4. If a Gender Researcher replier professes "equity" before "equality" then shall profess "between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail" too. However if a Gender Researcher replier is again in doubt then come with clean hands and talk of "equality" before Law too by being just pro-person and not pro-men and or pro-women as in reply here a Gender Researcher self - obsessedly professed !.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query