We got featured in the ChannelAsiaNews documentary on India's struggle with
gender violence.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH
JUDGMENTS ON MAINTENANCE CASES (IN
FAVOUR OF HUSBAND)
1. Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr (Crl) Appeal no.730 of 2020 Supreme
Court of India (Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities Judgment)
In this very latest judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued
certain guidelines to be implemented in the cases related to the
maintenance in all the courts throughout the India with immediate
effect. In this case it is also held that the husband is not required to
pay maintenance in each of the proceedings/case filed by the wife
under different maintenance laws.
2. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Civil Revision No.1290 of 1999 decided on 24.03.2000.
In this case the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that
well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for
purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged.
It is further held that a lady, who is fighting matrimonial litigation filed
for Divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on
the Husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during
pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not mean for
creating an army of idle person who would be sitting idle waiting for a
"dole" to be awarded by her Husband who has got a grievance against
her and who has gone to the court for seeking relief against her. The
case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient
enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and wait for a
"dole" to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also
not permissible .The law does not help indolent as well idles so also
does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn
for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to
make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if
this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing
amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the
adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but for away after
an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in
existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements
because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the
efforts of amicable settlements because he would be reaping the in
nature of pendente lite alimony, and to prefer to be happy in
remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to
support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be
aim, goal of section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the
society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere
efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves and are
required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned
money by toiling working hours.
3. Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermet Juneja & Anr. 2012 [4] JCC
2375.
In this case it was held that if the wife was working in past and
resigned from the employment, she is not entitled for maintenance
under Domestic Violence act. The question whether the wife was
forced to resign or she has resigned herself is a question to be
considered by the court during trial and also the question whether the
reason given by her for resigning were satisfactory or not. These are
the question to be gone in to during evidence by the ld. Trial Court.
4. Vijay Kumar Vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal decided on 10.09.2008
in CM (M) ENo.539/2008 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
In this case the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that when Income
of both husband and wife are almost similar and both almost equally
qualified, there is no justification to grant interim maintenance to the
wife.
5. Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008
Supreme Court .
In this case while reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.10000/-
to Rs.5000/- granted by the lower court to the wife, the Supreme
Court observed that " we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that at
present the respondent wife is not employed or at least there is
nothing on record to indicate that she is employed in any gainful work.
However having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there
is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain
herself in the future.
6. Omar Abdullah Vs. Payal Abdullah & Ors. 2018 (1) JCC 632.
In this case the Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to decide
first the maintainability of the petition filed by the wife under section
125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that Maintainability of the petition under
section 125 Cr.P.C and question of award of interim maintenance are
inseparable. In Order to award interim maintenance ,the court
concerned shall first arrive at a finding that whether the husband
neglected or refused to give maintenance to his wife and whether the
wife was unable to maintain herself ,then proceed with the case
further.
7. Suman Bhasin Vs.Neeraj Bhasin CC No.316/3/2007 Dated
27.05.2015 MM , Saket District Court”
In this case Court came heavily and imposed cost of Rs. one lakh for
filing false Domestic Violence case against Husband and in-laws. Court
in its judgment has observed that Domestic Violence law has been
misused.
8. Manushree Vs. Sachin case no.26/2016 decided on
15.01.2019,ADJ Saket District Court N.Delhi
In this case while rejecting the maintenance petition filed by the wife
who is well qualified has also observed that Court should not be
allowed to be used to extort money, junks woman’s maintenance plea
and imposed a cost of Rs. One lac on the woman, saying the
proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C has filed only to blackmail the Husband.
9. Kusum Bhatia Vs.Sagar Sethi S.L.P.(C) No.16051/2017 Dated
16.09.2019 Supreme Court
Supreme Court has declined to award any maintenance u/s 24 of
H.M.A to wife who was working and getting sufficient salary, however
it awarded maintenance to the Daughter.
MEET US AT
Office: 204, 2nd Floor Wing II, Hans Bhawan ITO, New Delhi,
110002
Chamber: 517 Saket Court, New Delhi, 110017
CALL US AT
+91 9811072861
+91 7678593376
MAIL US AT
[email protected]
MEET US HERE
DISCLAIMER
It is to be informed to all concerned that the rules of the Bar Council of India prohibits advertising and soliciting any
case or work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of general
information and not for the purpose of advertising of the website or individual. The information about our Law Firm as
well as contents of the same are provided to the user only on his/her request and any information/knowledge
obtained from this website or material downloaded from this website is completely at the user's will and any
transmission, receipt or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client relationship. The material on our website
has been prepared and published for general information about general legal knowledge for awareness amongst the
public only. There is neither any effort nor any intention to solicit new clients or new engagement or from existing
clients by way of this website. Mahesh Tiwari & Associates are committed to comply with all the laws applicable and
under no circumstances we will violate any law or conflicts with any ethical, statutory, or other requirements
applicable for the performance of professional legal services. We further undertake that we are fully committed to the
fulfilling of legal laws to protect professional etiquette and will never intent to preach the code of conduct or
professional ethics. We further advise to the user not to solely act on his/her personal case on the information
available on this site and for that purpose, it is advisable to act and move as per the advice of his/her respective
counsel. The main purpose of this website is to spread awareness amongst the public about the complicated legal
terms by writing articles on the legal issues.
Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. Mahesh Tiwari &
Associates
