Alimony judgments - here

Ex-wife now working, but court asks man to pay alimony

A Delhi court has ordered a man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife though it has found that she is capable of earning enough money for herself and is better educated than her former husband. The court ruled that after her divorce in 2003, the woman had no means to support herself and it was on this basis that the amount of maintenance should be decided.

Petitioner told the court that she had married a PWD draftsman in 2002, and though her family had given a substantial dowry her husband's family continuously harassed her for more.

She alleged that her husband's family was cruel to her and her husband suspected her of having an affair with her brother-in-law.

She was forced to leave her marital home in 2003, and since then her husband had not paid her a single penny by way of maintenance, the petitioner said.

Since then, she had completed her LLB degree from a Noida-based institution, was now an advocate, and was also enrolled in a company secretary course.

In response, the husband said that the woman had left him without any cause and that he had made several attempts to bring her back. He said she was running a computer education centre, from which she was earning about Rs 30,000 per month and used to give tuitions to students up to Class X. He said Sulekha's financial status was strong and thus, he wasn't entitled to pay any maintenance to her.

Supreme Court of India: ‘No alimony for woman who desert husband’

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.

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?”

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.”

HC gives Muslim woman maintenance under CrPC

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday ruled that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not under the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, because her maintenance application was filed when she was still married and that the said law applied only to divorced women.

On January 31, 1986, when she first filed the maintenance application, Yasmeen Khan was 19 years old, married and subjected to abuse by her husband. After two decades of legal struggle, the decision by the Single Bench on Tuesday means Yasmeen, now divorced, would get close to Rs 40,000, calculated at Rs 150 per month.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, was enacted in May 1986 in the wake of the Shah Bano judgment upholding the right of Muslim women to seek maintenance under the CrPC. The Act had diluted the Supreme Court judgment and among other things stipulated that the maintenance to a divorced woman be given only during the period of iddat or till 90 days after the divorce according to the provisions of Islamic law. On the other hand, Section 125 of the CrPC, is the general provision for maintenance of wives, children and parents and applies to everyone irrespective of religion.

The High Court said Yasmeen was entitled to maintenance since January 1986 when she filed the application and it would not be affected by her divorce nine months later in October 1986 because the litigation arising out of the maintenance application was still pending when the talaq had taken place.

For Yasmeen, the judgment is a vindication for her demand for maintenance that has been a question of litigation since January 31, 1986, when the application under Section 125 of the Cr PC was filed before the Sabarkantha chief judicial magistrate. The CJM had subsequently ordered that a maintenance of Rs 150 per month be paid to Khan.

However, on her husband Niwaz Khan's appeal, this was reversed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that no claim for maintenance would be tenable under Section 125 of the CrPC because the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was already in place. Yasmeen had then approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition on March 14, 1988.

On Tuesday, Justice D N Patel reversed this order and restored the ordered of the CJM and ordered that maintenance be paid to the woman effective from 1986 to the present day.

NEW DELHI: In divorce cases, the courts must factor in the wife's status and lifestyle while fixing alimony to ensure that she lives in reasonable comfort but should not grant an amount that would be repressive for the husband, the Supreme Court has ruled.

"The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband," said a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan.

But it struck a balance too. "The amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party," it said while asking an Air India commander to choose between paying a permanent one-time alimony of Rs 40 lakh or Rs 40,000 a month for the entire life of his ex-airhostess wife.

The Bombay High Court had granted divorce by mutual consent on the terms that he either pay Rs 20 lakh or Rs 20,000 a month. Her counsel senior advocate Nidesh Gupta argued that it was too little compared to the earnings of her estranged husband and the prospects of future promotion.

Though senior advocate Indu Malhotra argued that the former Cathay Pacific airhostess had highly exaggerated her ex-husband's income, the bench said it could not be denied that the wife left her job after marriage at the instance of her husband.

It took note of the facts -- husband was a senior commander, properties in his name, he being 42 years of age, future employment prospects, he had re-married having a child, had to look after his parents.

"We feel that the ends of justice would be met by fixing maintenance at the rate of Rs 40,000 per month instead of Rs 20,000 per month. In the alternative, we fix the amount of permanent alimony/maintenance at Rs 40 lakh in lumpsum to be paid by the respondent within a period of six months from August 1, which will forfeit all her claims," it said.

Rs. 70 lakh alimony

The Delhi high court has ordered a vice president of one of world's largest banking firm to pay Rs 70 lakh alimony to his estranged wife and their four-year-old daughter. The court noted the man abandoned his wife and daughter in India and led a luxurious life in Dubai. Ashok (name changed) and Asha (name changed) got married in 2000 and started living in Dubai, where Ashok was heading the operation of a Dubai-based banking firm. After some time, the couple got back to India where Ashok allegedly abandoned his wife and minor daughter.

In 2008 Asha filed a petition in the court for grant of maintenance of herself and their daughter. Initially, a trial court granted maintenance of R80,000 per month in accordance to her husband's earnings.

But after a sessions court reduced the maintenance from R80,000 to R30,000 per month, Asha's counsel Prabhjit Jauhar filed a petition in the Delhi high court.

The counsel told the court that Ashok was concealing his true income and that he be told to submit his employer's certificate along with his monthly earnings and his statement of bank accounts for the past three years.

The counsel also demanded that a statement stating how much bonus he received during these past years should be filed in the court. Ashok's counsel Malvika Rajkotia said there was no practice wherein the bank could issue such a certificate. 

Justice Ajit Bharihoke struck down Ashok's contention and directed him to file his employer certificate including the perks and bonus accrued to him every year.

But later, Ashok agreed to come to a mutual agreement. In an in-chamber proceeding, he agreed to pay Rs. 70 lakh as alimony to the wife and daughter.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that though bigamy may be illegal under Hindu law, such a marriage can't be declared immoral and the 'illegal' wife cannot be denied alimony. The ruling came with the apex court legitimising the maintenance claim of a Hindu wife whose marriage was declared illegal on grounds that it was bigamy. The court said her husband was liable to pay alimony to her and maintenance for their children.

"Keeping into consideration the present state of the statutory Hindu law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the Hindu Marriage Act, but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependent," said a Bench of Justices D M Dharmadhikari and H K Sema on separate appeals by the litigating couple.

While the husband, a lawyer, challenged the Madhya Pradesh high court order asking him to pay Rs 3,000 as maintenance for his 'wife' and their daughter, the wife had challenged dissolution of the marriage on the grounds that it was a bigamous alliance.

Rejecting the woman's petition, the Bench upheld dissolution of her marriage because it was bigamy and, therefore, illegal. However, invoking section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court asked the husband to pay alimony to the aggrieved wife and daughter. "The facts of the present case fully justify grant of maintenance both to the wife and the daughter," the Bench added.

Noting that after the second marriage, the couple lived as husband and wife and they had a considerably long married life of about nine years, the court directed the husband to pay arrears of maintenance running into over Rs 1 lakh.

Court decides woman's plea for alimony in 21 yrs, rules delay

New Delhi, Sep 18 (PTI) (2011) Ruing the snail's pace of work in judiciary, a Delhi court has rejected a 21-year-old plea by a woman for alimony from her husband, who was already married and his first was wife still alive.

The court's order came on the plea by a Chirag Delhi resident woman, married in 1987 to an erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking contractor, who already had his first wife living. In her plea, the woman said she came to know of the man's first marriage two years later after the birth of her daughter in 1989. Since then she had been living separately from him as he had also begun to torture her for bringing insufficient dowry.

"Considering the admission of the woman in light of the law laid down by the apex court, she cannot be considered as legally wedded wife for the purpose of granting maintenance to her as she does not fall within the definition of "wife" as envisaged in section 125 CrPC. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance in the present case," the court said.

However, Metropolitan Magistrate Priya Mahendra asked the man to pay Rs 1,000 as maintenance to the daughter, born to his second wife, saying even an illegitimate child has a right to claim maintenance from his/her father under Section 125 of CrPC. The judge, while pronouncing the order, cited the apex court's judgment that marriage of a woman in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies with a man already having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to get benefit of maintenance.

No alimony for wife earning well

Published: Monday, Sep 22, 2008, 3:30 IST 
By Rakesh Bhatnagar

High Court denies monthly compensation to a woman making Rs 80,000 a month

NEW DELHI; A woman earning sufficient income is not entitled to maintenance from her estranged husband, the Delhi high court has ruled. The observation came while the high court set aside a family courts order granting Rs7500 monthly maintenance in a matrimonial dispute to a woman earning Rs80,000 a month.

According to a Supreme Court ruling, a woman is entitled to maintenance if her independent income is insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to while living with her husband.

The Delhi high court accepted the woman's Rs80,000 monthly income as sufficient for self-maintenance. Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and husband both are earning and having good salary, an order is not required, Justice S N Dhingra said while allowing the aggrieved husband's petition.

The husband, Satish Kumar (name changed), had contended that the family court wrongly granted maintenance to his wife Sunita (name changed) despite the fact that her income was sufficient for self-maintenance and she did not have any other responsibility. The court accepted Sunitas salary slip of February 2007 that shows her gross monthly salary as Rs80,000.

A person who is earning this much of salary can very well maintain herself with such a standard which may be envy of many and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the income earned by her was not enough to maintain herself, the HC observed.
Earlier, while dealing with a similar dispute, the Supreme Court had ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if her independent income or earnings as a single woman are insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to whilst living with her husband.

A deserted wife or divorced woman need not be reduced to a destitute state before filing for maintenance for herself and her children under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an apex court bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam had observed.

Explaining the phrase unable to maintain herself, the apex court said:...it would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and not the efforts made by her after the desertion.

This expression, the judges said, does not imply that the wife should be destitute before she can apply for maintenance.

The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain her in the way she was used to in the place of her husband, the apex court had said. Elaborating it by an example, the apex court had said where a wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also not be said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself or not has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record.

Published: Saturday, Dec 4, 2010, 14:28 IST 
By Nikunj Soni | Place: Ahmedabad | Agency: DNA

Rupees forty thousand as interim alimony. That, too, every month. This amount may sound too big, but Gujarat High Court has recently asked a man to pay this to his estranged wife.

The high court is hearing a case of matrimonial dispute between a rich and highly educated young couple who parted ways just 12 days after their marriage in 2007.

Justice Akil Kureshi of the high court passed the order keeping in mind the hefty income of the man, who earns more than Rs20 lakh a year. According to the court order, the man has to payRs25,000 for the maintenance of the woman (Seema) and Rs15,000 as 
house rent if Seema resides in a separate rented house and gives proof to that effect.

As the story goes, the man (Parin), who is a graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and has done research in computer science in the USA, and Seema, an MBA, tied the knot in November 2007.However, Seema parted ways with Parin after 12 days of their marriage. This took place at Ahmedabad airport after they returned from their honeymoon in Malaysia.

Seema alleged before the police and the court that her in-laws started harassing her from day one for not having brought huge dowry and that Parin had compelled her to watch perverse videos on his palmtop and act accordingly during their honeymoon. Seema and her family filed a series of complaints before police alleging dowry harassment, and also asking for return of her belongings gifted during the marriage.

She also filed a petition to get alimony from her husband who was getting a hefty pay package of around Rs21 lakh a year. Seema approached Gujarat high court when the lower court approved an alimony of only Rs5,000 as Parin did not show his income proof. 
When the case came up for hearing before the high court, Parin, after much reluctance, furnished Income Tax (I-T) returns of three previous years.

According to the returns, in the assessment year 2006-07, Parin had disclosed a gross income of Rs7,94,220 and paid tax of Rs1,81,250. In 2007-08, he disclosed a gross income of Rs9,91,631 and paid tax of Rs2,25,694 while in 2008-09, he had earned a total income of Rs21,54,622 and paid tax of Rs4,61,545.

Countering the claim for alimony, Parin informed the court that due to frequent complaints by Seema to his employers, he had lost jobs and that he had no job at present. “Even Seema is doing a job and earns Rs20,000 a month,” he told the court.

But justice Kureshi noted in the order: “The latest income of the husband, on record, exceeds Rs1.25 lakh per month. He is a highly qualified engineer, which holds considerable market value. In addition to being an engineer from IIT, he also had exposure and qualification in the filed of computer science, abroad. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he is not employed.” Meanwhile, another application moved by Seema for further investigation into the dowry case and return of gifts is pending before the high court.

While Seema’s father has written letters to different forums, alleging that a retired IPS officer is harassing them and influencing the investigation, Parin’s family has written a letter to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) citing that the girl’s family and the police are harassing them for undue reasons.

(Names and place have been changed to protect  identity)

AHMEDABAD: A division bench of the Gujarat high court turned down a man's plea to scale down the alimony to his estranged wife, after it learnt that the man had bought a luxury car.

Dharmesh Desai's wife Hetal had moved the family court in Surat seeking divorce in 2009 and sought maintenance. The court asked Desai to give her Rs 3,000 every month till the divorce was settled. Hetal found the amount meager and moved the high court.

The single-judge bench took up the case and increased the maintenance amount from Rs 3,000 to Rs 7,500. However, the high court took notice of the fact that the lower court did not ask Desai to pay a penny to couple's daughter, who was studying in Class XII. The high court on its own decided for fix the amount and accordingly asked Desai to pay Rs 10,000 every month towards the girl's education.

Desai, who owns two shops in Surat and is engaged in the business of home appliances, challenged this order of payment of Rs 17,500 every month before a division bench stating that this amount is too much for him. He argued that the high court awarded maintenance amount for the daughter, event though his wife did not seek it before the trial court.

During the proceeding, Desai proposed one time settlement at payment of Rs 8 lakh on condition that his wife would withdraw all cases and the divorce petition would be converted to the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The woman agreed, but in the next proceeding Desai's counsel told the court that she would not be withdrawing from the case because the man had gone back on his word.

Another lawyer appeared for Desai and argued that he did not have sufficient income to pay a huge amount to his separated wife and daughter. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the court's notice that Desai had just purchased a brand new car worth Rs 6 lakh. This led the division bench to dismiss his appeal with observation that if he could buy a car, he could pay for her minor daughter's education that is costly these days.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A landmark ruling in Muslim wives' welfare, the Kerala High Court on Thursday, pronounced that a Muslim woman, even if remarried, was entitled to monetary relief from her former husband.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Mr M Ramachandran and Justice Mr M Sasidharan Nambiar observed that under the CrPC a remarried divorcee was not eligible for alimony but under the Muslim women (Protection of Rights Act) 1986 Sec-A, remarriage was never mentioned a situation.

According to it, the Muslim wife, who either divorced her husband on her own or was abandoned by the husband, must start getting alimony from the Iddat period of three months. Remarriage is not considered in the Act. Delay in getting relief from the man is an offence and she could approach the magisterial court.

The case came up when A Abdul Hamid of Kasaragode filed an appeal against the judgment in this regard of Kozhikode Judicial First class Magistrate.

TNN Aug 14, 2010, 02.44am IST

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant maintenance to a Muslim woman who allegedly married a Hindu and then separated, saying there was no proof she had converted to Hinduism and hence wasn't eligible for alimony under the Hindu marriage Act.

Justice Kailash Gambhir, while dismissing two petitions from Salma (name changed) who claimed she had converted before getting married according to Hindu rituals, expressed concern over how religious conversions were increasingly being done to "reap benefits or manoeuvre the law''.

"Religious conversions... are increasingly used for anything but the primary reason: spiritual advancement. The basic focus to convert from one religion to another is to seek God from another platform, but unfortunately today proselytization is being done for reaping benefits and in cases like the present one, as an afterthought to manoeuvre the law,'' Justice Gambhir observed.

The court recommended that the legislature frame laws in this regard so that controversy and court battles arising out of problems over a convert's religious status in matrimonial cases is reduced.

In her appeals before HC, Salma had sought permanent alimony and maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act along with divorce from her estranged husband. But she failed to prove she had converted from Hinduism and that she had lawfully married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Wondering how she could claim the right to divorce her husband and alimony when it wasn't even proved that she was a Hindu, the court refused to grant her any relief.

Salma had claimed in court that she met Sunil (name changed) at work and the two got married in accordance with Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj temple in 1988. She said trouble began when Sunil insisted that she abort their child and then allegedly married another woman. Sunil maintained that Salma had never converted to Hinduism nor did he marry her. He also denied all allegations of cruelty levelled against him.

TNN Nov 20, 2004, 12.40am IST

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A landmark ruling in Muslim wives' welfare, the Kerala High Court on Thursday, pronounced that a Muslim woman, even if remarried, was entitled to monetary relief from her former husband.

The division bench comprising Justice M Ramachandran and Justice M Sasidharan Nambiar observed that under the CrPC a remarried divorcee was not eligible for alimony but under the Muslim women (Protection of Rights Act) 1986 Sec-A, remarriage was never mentioned a situation. According to it, the Muslim wife, who either divorced her husband on her own or abandoned by the husband, must start getting alimony from the Iddat period of three months.

Remarraige is not considered in the Act. Delay in getting relief from the man is an offence and she could approach the magisterial court.

The case came up when A Abdul Hamid of Kasaragode filed an appeal against the judgement in this regard of Kozhikode Judicial First class Magistrate.

AHMEDABAD: The special law for divorced Muslim women will not come in the way if a divorcee seeks alimony from her ex-husband and the man is liable to maintain the wife till she remarries, the Gujarat High Court ruled in a 15-year-old dispute of maintenance between a separated couple.

In this nearly two-decade of litigation in Valsad, Farida sought alimony from her ex-husband Shauqat Qureshi in 1992. She sought maintenance as per the provisions of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) claiming that her period of iddat was over. Her application was rejected by a judicial magistrate on the ground that she was a divorced Muslim woman and she could claim maintenance only under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and not under provisions of the CrPC.

 Farida challenged this decision before the sessions court, and the judge quashed the magistrate's order and asked the magisterial court to hear her case again in 1995. This order in favour of Farida led her former husband to move the high court with claims that his separate wife could not apply for alimony under CrPC, particularly when there is a special legal provision for divorced Muslim women.

After hearing the case, Justice AL Dave observed that the sessions judge was right in asking the lower court to hear the case again. The high court cited a Supreme Court decision in Iqbal Bano case, wherein it was ruled in 2007 that if a divorced Muslim woman applies for alimony under CrPC, it is open to the court to treat it as an application under the Muslim Women Act.

Besides this, Justice Dave also noted that the SC in Shabana Bano case this year has taken a view that even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim alimony from her former husband as long as she does not remarry. "And this being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced woman," with this observation the high court opined that Farida can seek alimony under CrPC after the period of iddat was over following her divorce.

Published: Saturday, Dec 5, 2009, 1:27 IST 
By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Sending out a clear message that the law does not discriminate on the basis of religion, caste or creed, the Supreme Court (SC) held on Friday that a Muslim woman, like women from all other communities, was entitled to alimony under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Her plea to seek alimony is maintainable even after the completion of iddat, provided she doesn’t remarry, the court ruled.

(Iddat is a period of waiting Islam has imposed on women who have been divorced or whose husbands have died. During this period, a new marriage is not permissible. The period, three months after a divorce and four months and 10 days after the death of a spouse.)

A Muslim woman would be entitled to maintenance from her divorced husband as long as she doesn’t remarry, a bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma asserted while allowing the plea of Shah Bano.

Bano was aggrieved by the Madhya Pradesh high court judgment that recorded her estranged husband Imran Khan’s statement that since he had divorced her under the Muslim law  talaq, talaq, talaq  five years ago, she was entitled to limited alimony till iddat.

Bano married Imran according to Muslim rites in Gwalior in 2001. When she became pregnant, she returned to her parents house and gave birth to a child.

Since even after delivery, Imran didn’t take her back, she was constrained to file a petition under section 125 CrPC. She said since Imran was earning Rs12,000 a month and she had no source of income, Rs3,000 be paid to her as alimony.

Imran contested saying since he had divorced her in 2004 in accordance with the Muslim law, she couldn,t claim maintenance under CrPC. He said she could seek remedy under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, that barred maintenance after iddat. The family court partially allowed Bano’s plea and asked Imran to pay Rs2,000 a month from 2004. The high court, however, overturned the judgment.

The Delhi High Court on Friday, August 27, 2010 said that an unemployed man cannot be forced to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, after noting that in an era of gender equality, a person cannot be compelled to maintain others if spouses are on an equal footing. Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra said, “Under prevalent laws, a husband is supposed to maintain his jobless spouse out of the income he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain his wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not.”

While setting aside the order of a family court, the court said, “The court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to his wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost qualified and capable of earning and when both of them claim to be gainfully employed before marriage.”

Earlier, the family court had directed that the husband, who is unemployed, is supposed to pay maintenance of 5,000 to his wife. The court said that the wife, who is equally qualified as her husband and was working in an MNC, cannot ask for maintenance from her jobless husband.

While granting relief to the husband who was an NRI working in Angola in Africa, the court said, “Since both are on equal footing, one cannot be asked to maintain the other unless one is unemployed and the other is employed.”

The court also said that the Constitution provides equal treatment to all irrespective of s*x, caste and creed. An unemployed husband who is holding an MBA degree cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife who is also holding an MBA degree. Filing a petition challenging the family court’s February 2008 order, Mr Sanjay Bhardwaj, an NRI, said he was working as a Sales Manager in Luanda, capital of Angola. He came to India for marriage with another MBA graduate in May 2007 and his married life had lasted only for three weeks.