LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Big Iron (Officer)     03 June 2012

Woman quiting job wilfully, not entitled to alimony: hc

 

An educated woman who is capable of maintaining herself but quits her job voluntarily, is not entitled to alimony from her estranged husband, the Delhi High Court has held.

Justice Pratibha Rani dismissed the woman's plea, which had challenged a lower court's order denying her maintenance on the ground that she was well-qualified and working in the past, but had quit her job out of her own free will.

"The additional sessions judge has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the woman by holding that she was well-educated lady, earning Rs 50,000 per month and had chosen not to work out of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself," Justice Rani said.

The high court upheld the lower court's order which had declined her maintenance but had asked her husband to pay Rs 10,000 to take care of their child.

Advocate Tarun Goomber appearing for the man, opposed the woman's plea seeking maintenance for herself as well.

The Delhi-based woman told the court that she worked in a private insurance company as an assistant manager but had quit the job as the firm was shifting to Bengaluru.

She contended that she did not move to Bengaluru to comply with a lower court's order to allow her husband to visit the child.

Goomber, however, contended that she never approached any court to modify the order granting visitation rights to his client.

Opposing the plea for maintenance, he argued that with the passage of time the child is now in school-going age and "thus, it is more convenient for a working mother to be in the job than to sit at home."

Justice Rani dismissed the woman's plea referring to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement which said, "A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony."



Learning

 33 Replies

bhima balla (none)     03 June 2012

It is good that it was a woman judge- otherwise women's empowerment folks would have cried foul and bias by 'paternalistic, male, dominant judges' who do not understand the sorry fate of abalanari of India!

It is high time. In fact alll educated women irrespective of previous history of work must be denied maintenance and encouraged to take up jobs. Infact education itself is no criteria-any capable woman who is physically fit should be expected to earn her own livelihood and contribute a portion for child maintenance as well.

1 Like

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     03 June 2012

Nice response from Bhima Balla.


(Guest)

It is good that it was a woman judge

woman is woman's enemey..what more example is needed?

bhima balla (none)     04 June 2012

Originally posted by :Nina Rakheja
"
It is good that it was a woman judge

woman is woman's enemey..what more example is needed?
"

 The woman judge had the courage to do the right thing. We have a long way to go in doing the right thing as far as judgements/justice go. There is a fear (apparently) amongst male judges to go against women these days-partly due to the clout of feminists and partly due to biased media. Feminism is a fad. But what will happen when the dust settles?

It is only a beginning when judges are unbiased and fearless!

1 Like

Nandha (NIL)     04 June 2012

@ bhima - well said!

Big Iron (Officer)     05 June 2012

I too believe that in matrimonial disputes, female judges are better then male counterparts.

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     05 June 2012

I find the anti-women sentiments in this forum amazing.  Adultery should be legalized.  Prostitution should be legalized.  Women should do jobs without sitting at home and without depending on men.  And so on.

 

So what all this hints at?  What social order?  If woman has job and need not depend on man what for she needs a husband?  For s*x?  If she wants s*x, 100s will stand in queue for her.  Why she needs a husband for s*x.  For money?  She has a job.  What for she needs a husband for money?  For children?  She can become mother through artificial insemination process.  Surrogacy.  She wants social needs from husband and her family members?  She can become a better socialite if she lives alone and becomes part of Page3 society in India.  What for a woman needs a man?

 

And men?  What for they need a woman?  To clean utensils at home, cooking, sweeping and washing cloths?  For that they can appoint a servant maid.  Sex they can go to prostitutes as they themselves are encouraging legalizing of prostitution and also adultery.  For children they can use women who can give them a child through surrogacy. 

 

What for a man want a wife and woman want husband when everything that a husband or wife can do can be satisfied if husand and wife can independently earn money and sustain even three or four children?  I am not throwing a challenge at men harrassed by women who write all these issues in this forum.  I am asking a question.  What for man want a wife and a woman want a husband if women can earn their own livelihood and also ensure livelihood of their children on their own independently?

 

 

 

Big Iron (Officer)     05 June 2012

 

Mr Chandrasekhar,

I've read your various posts and apart from few points I admire your intellectual and reasoning capability.

 

Let me share my view on the issue you have raised:

 

1. Nowadays, everybody asks for rights, nobody cares for duties.

2. I am born and brought in Delhi and trust me attitude of girls has changed so much that they deserved to be treated equally. Sometimes when I travel by metro, I notice even 18 years old girl does not hesitate to ask 70+ years old man to vacate their reserved seat and on the other hand I've also noticed that an old man will keep standing and will not ask for seat from a female even if it is reserved for him. I am not talking about one or two instances perhaps it has become general phenomenon. I am not anti feminist but "With great power comes great responsibility" and if not handled responsibly, it brings disaster. 

3. As far as need for s*x and household work are concerned, nobody marries for these. I absolutely agree with you that a man can buy s*x and surrogate mothers and a woman can have man standing in queue to have s*x with her. But we humans marry to find our Jeenansathi (Or may be with time we just got accustomed to think like that). As per my understanding, Jeevansathi is somebody with whom you can share you happiness and sorrow, somebody who will stand by you when you are 60+ years old. When you are young and beautiful, you can have so many partners but marriage is about your whole life (At least as per Indian Hindu culture) and we need somebody to talk and take care of each other when we really need it.

Ohh man....I can’t believe I have written so much :D

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     05 June 2012

if a man is guilty of deserting/abusing wife or of adultery,courts must FORCE him to maintain his EDUCATED wife,even if she earns 5 lakhs monthly.

 

If courts do not allow manitenance to such a victimised(but earning )wives,then such mean husbands and in-laws will make marriage into a business,by marrying educated/highly earning wife,then dumping her at will.they will no more fear paying maintenance,as they will know courts will not favour it to a wrkg. woman.

 

therefore this lagaam(control) on such men in form of penalty,called maintenance to theirnwrks wives will send the message across  -that marriage is not a joke.

 


(Guest)

@ roshni, If women do adultry then what..? See one thing that- 1. If four men will sit together then they will make a home. 

bhima balla (none)     05 June 2012

Originally posted by :Roshni B..
"
if a man is guilty of deserting/abusing wife or of adultery,courts must FORCE him to maintain his EDUCATED wife,even if she earns 5 lakhs monthly.

 

If courts do not allow manitenance to such a victimised(but earning )wives,then such mean husbands and in-laws will make marriage into a business,by marrying educated/highly earning wife,then dumping her at will.they will no more fear paying maintenance,as they will know courts will not favour it to a wrkg. woman.

 

therefore this lagaam(control) on such men in form of penalty,called maintenance to theirnwrks wives will send the message across  -that marriage is not a joke.

 
"

 What about females with adultery ? What about wives who are abusive? What about wives who do not take care of their responsibilities in a family, are abusive to husband, his parents, his brothers and sisters? That is the crux of the problem. The current law does not even punish people for false cases, even of serious nature. That is why it needs to come before the courts.The courts needs to deliver the verdict. Unfortunately the system is so messed up innocent people are suffering. This is not something good people can/should tolerate!

Maintenance is to support livelihood, not for revenge!

Only a fool throws a juicy, healthy orange (a good woman) on the contrary rotten tomatoes gets thrown (bad woman) out and rightly so! Giving protection to bad women is like making people eat rotten tomatoes and rotten eggs. I don't think anyone would tolerate that. This whole idea that wife would be used and thrown is ridiculous.The Parliamentary debate is full of such speeches!

On the contrary-a working educated women have more independence and capability to take care of herself. A woman has to prove herself worthy in a family! No one can tolerate a freeloader!

Only when we punish bad and protect good can society flourish. It applies to one and all. A system that does not do that is a failed system.

 

bhima balla (none)     05 June 2012

Originally posted by :chandrasekhar.7203@ gmail.com
"


I find the anti-women sentiments in this forum amazing.  Adultery should be legalized.  Prostitution should be legalized.  Women should do jobs without sitting at home and without depending on men.  And so on.

 

So what all this hints at?  What social order?  If woman has job and need not depend on man what for she needs a husband?  For s*x?  If she wants s*x, 100s will stand in queue for her.  Why she needs a husband for s*x.  For money?  She has a job.  What for she needs a husband for money?  For children?  She can become mother through artificial insemination process.  Surrogacy.  She wants social needs from husband and her family members?  She can become a better socialite if she lives alone and becomes part of Page3 society in India.  What for a woman needs a man?

 

And men?  What for they need a woman?  To clean utensils at home, cooking, sweeping and washing cloths?  For that they can appoint a servant maid.  Sex they can go to prostitutes as they themselves are encouraging legalizing of prostitution and also adultery.  For children they can use women who can give them a child through surrogacy. 

 

What for a man want a wife and woman want husband when everything that a husband or wife can do can be satisfied if husand and wife can independently earn money and sustain even three or four children?  I am not throwing a challenge at men harrassed by women who write all these issues in this forum.  I am asking a question.  What for man want a wife and a woman want a husband if women can earn their own livelihood and also ensure livelihood of their children on their own independently?

 

"

 All these are hapening because:

Some people somewhere decided that women were 'unequal' to men. They set out to bring about a notion of equality-their notion of 'equality'. These people told women that they were 'inferior to men and that they were going to bring about 'equality'. Accordingly, they wanted women to change.they wanted women to wear pants, cut their hair short (to look like a man?), take up a job, have a career. They derided them for household work and called it chores (with derision). They wanted women to compete with man in all fields.

bhima balla (none)     05 June 2012

They called it 'women empowerment' and 'women's rights'

The changes caused new problems in households and family. So their move was to change men forcibly to be responsible'equally' with the household work-the so called chores. They tried hard in attaining their notion of 'equality' by making women unwomanly and men unmanly. they wanted 'equality' at any cost.

These are people who one day looked at their fingers and thought-why are fingers unequal? One is long, the other short and some others fat! they set about to bring 'equality' to their fingers at any cost. They cut those that were long, they sqeezed those taht were fat and they pulled those that were short! They would have 'equality' at any cost. Then once they achieved that they looked at toes and felt how come toes and fingers are unequal? They set about the task of making them 'equal'. Again they cut fingers and pulled their toes etc etc.


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