how much amount will court be granted for maintenance case

After taking into consideration all mandatory deductions the Court would probably give 1/3 to wife

One of the Headlines in the paper today reads as follows
HC: base maintenance on family income
It says that the Bombay HC has said that the joint family finances of a man can be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid to his estranged wife.  It gave it's order in a case involving a 31 year old Pune businessman.  The HC has hiked the maintenace by 8 folds!!!!!  Sounds like justice is finally coming to women, isn't it and many men will jump and say how judges favour women and the legal system favours women, how the system is biased towards them etc etc Isn't it?  WHAT A JOKE.  Read on......
The maintenance was hiked from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs 20,000/- for the estranged wife and their minor daughter and do you want to know what the the income of the family is?  Rs. 3 CRORES.   This is absolute mockery of it's own word.  In the same breath the HC says 'base maintenance on family income' and within seconds gives a contradictory judgement by giving a pitance of Rs. 20,000/- .  What a joke. 

SO MR RADHAKRISHNA YOU NEED NOT WORRY IT'S THE INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM,  WITH THE MEDEIVAL MINDSET OF OUR H'BLE JUDGES, THE MAINTENANCE SHE WILL BE ALLOTED WILL BE AT THE MAXIMUM THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO SACRIFICE BUYING ONE EXTRA PANT OR SHIRT OR A DINNER OUT!!!!

is the wife entitled to maintenance even if she is earning?

what if she does not work at the time of the divorce

but later on after few years starts to earn a nominal salary

delhi hc: if she is earning decently no maintenance to wife , but children will get maintenance.if she is able bodied , no children  and well educated with proofs of past income she can be denied maintenace.

but if there are children then situation is vey different. they will definitel get main from father.

regarding shivani , in that particular case, wife cud not prove his income. it was his income as copercenator of HUF and  IT retuns were not submitted even after courts' request that a maintenance amount of 20K had to be ordered. court has to see that main is not a punishment to non applicant also.

20 K To a well educated lady is gud inome plus wat she can earn by her own earning, so justice seems to have been done. please read case citation , there is no direct proof of husbands income submitted , only assumptions have been made.even husbnds it return or huf it returns were not submitted in court.

MR RADHAKRISHNAN , U CAN USE JUDGEMENT BELOW FOR THE CAUSE OF STOPPING  BEGGING. BUT I HAVE FULLY SYMPATHY WITH YOUR  CHILDERN .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 879 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7503 of 2008]

BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN

Versus

MANSI MEEN @ HARPREET KAUR

WITH

SLP(Crl.)No.7924 of 2008

...

Appellant(s)

... Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave is granted in SLP(C) No.7503 of 2008.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1 st July,

2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc.No.14793-M of 2008,

whereby the appellant's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing the orders dated 25th July, 2007 and 6th November, 2007

passed by the courts below granting Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to

the respondent-wife, was dismissed.

Taking into consideration the evidence adduced, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, before whom the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the respondent-wife is pending, directed the

appellant-husband to pay the said sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of interim maintenance

to the respondent-wife during the pendency of the proceeding. The said order was

2

affirmed both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court.

Before us, the appellant-husband, who is appearing in person, has shown that

his salary certificate had been produced before the Magistrate, from which it appears

that he was drawing approximately Rs.34,900/- per month towards his salary, out of

which various deductions were being made, including a deduction of Rs.21,329/-

towards the home loan which he had obtained, leaving in his hand as takeaway salary

a sum of about Rs.9000/-.

The appellant has submitted that in that view of the matter, the amount as

awarded by the Magistrate to the respondent-wife was not justifiable.

The appellant-husband has also taken another point regarding the

maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of the ability

of the respondent-wife to maintain herself.

On behalf of the respondent-wife, it has been urged that having regard to the

net salary, which the appellant is entitled to take home, the amount as assessed by way

of interim maintenance by the Magistrate and as upheld by the Sessions Judge as well

as the High Court, could not be said to be excessive and that the fact that the appellant

had taken the home loan which has been adjusted against the salary, is no

consideration for altering the said amount, as had been granted by the learned

Sessions Judge.

As far as the second point taken by the appellant is concerned, it was submitted

that the same required evidence and had to be to ultimately decided by the Magistrate

while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and considering the

reality of the situation to the effect that the appellant is receiving a sum of about

Rs.9000/- in hand after deduction of various amounts, including the instalments

3

towards repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the amount as awarded

by way of interim maintenance is on the high side. At the same time, 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 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.

Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate, granting

Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife by way of interim maintenance and

direct that the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.5000/-

per month, instead of Rs.10,000/-, and all other terms and conditions, as indicated by

the learned Magistrate, will continue to operate.

We are informed that there are huge arrears, which are yet to be paid by the

appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. The learned Magistrate shall recalculate

the amount of arrears on the basis of the order passed today and the appellant-

husband shall within three months of the re-assessment of the amount, pay the sum to

the respondent-wife, if necessary, in three installments, to be decided by the learned

Magistrate.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the question as to what would be

the amount payable by way of maintenance per month to the respondent-wife and this

is only an interim arrangement till the matter is finally disposed of by the learned

Magistrate. We also keep open the second question raised by the husband-wife

regarding the applicability of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as far as the respondent-wife is

concerned.

Since the matter has been pending for a long time and evidence has been

recorded to some extent, we direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the pending

4

proceedings within six months from the date of communication of this order.

The other Special Leave Petition, being No.7924 of 2008, be delinked from the

appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.7503 of 2008, being disposed of by this order, and be

listed separately for final disposal after the summer vacation.

The order of attachment of the salary of the appellant, which had been stayed

in these proceedings, shall continue till the final disposal of the matter by the learned

Magistrate. In the event, the appellant defaults in making the payment in terms of this

order, the Magistrate will be at liberty to re-impose the order of attachment.

...................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi,
April 28, 2009.

AVNiSH ji, thanks for updating us.

Hi Avinash,

Is it possible that you have the citation / order of Punjab & Haryana HC which has recently decided that DV Act cannot be used against the female members of the family. I think the order is by Ms  Nirmaljit Kaur J, somewhere around March / April of 2010.

Also if you have a specific citation[from HC's and or SC] where maintenance has actually been denied because the wife is professionally qualified, was working before marriage and after marriage but now chooses to be unemployed so that she can claim maintenance. [Anybody else also reading this may contribute if you have the necessary info]

Thanking you in anticipation and looking forward to your responses

Hi Avnish,

I am very sorry I have in the earlier submission mis-spelt, rather changed your name to Avinash.

Sorry once again

@ Radhakrishnan

Your wife filed a civil (S. 24 HMA / S. 18 HAMA) or criminal maint (S.12 DVA or S. 125 CrPC) ?

ATULIYA , there is one very specific judgement by justice shri SN Dhingra in this regard on maintenance., please go thru all his judgements,in one case wife doctor other case beauty parlour  if u dont find i can search and send u.one more judgement year 2010 or end of 2009 in case of kaul vs kaul  in supreme court will help u in maintenance.

atuliya find attachment

atuliya find attachment

one more saying cross examination necessary for relief

SHIVANI KABRA

Vs.

STATE & ORS

Advocate (s) : PRAMOD GUPTA,

Date of Disposal : Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Category : CRIMINAL REVISIONS AND BAIL APPLICATIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
30.01.2008

Present: Mr.Pramod Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Crl.M.C.323/2008 and Crl. M.A.1186/2008

The petitioner/wife was married to respondent no.2/husband in accordance with Hindu rites on 14.02.1994. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the parents of respondent no.2/husband were demanding dowry from the beginning and the same was given by the parents of the petitioner/wife. There are allegations of cruelty made against the respondent no.2/husband and his family members being respondent nos. 3 to 5.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the said Act’ for short) on 24.04.2007 claiming relief under different provisions of the said Act including Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act.

The learned MM passed an order on 08.06.2007 as regards the relief
claimed by the petitioner under Sections 17 and 19 of the said Act in respect of the residence and shared household and directed the respondent no.2/husband to pay to the petitioner/wife a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards expenses for her accommodation and amenities. The relief claimed in respect of the custody of the children was settled by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge during the course of hearing of the revision petition.

The grievance of the petitioner/wife is in respect of the remaining
pending issues, the learned MM passed an order dated 09.10.2007 directing the parties to file their affidavits by way of evidence and posted the matter for cross examination of the petitioner /complainant (wife) on 13.11.2007. Hence, the present petition.

A perusal of the Order dated 09.10.2007 of the learned MM shows that the respondent no.2/husband sought an opportunity to cross examine the petitioner/complainant(wife) and the learned MM was of the view that under the provisions Section 28 of the said Act, the Court has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the said Code’ for short) and further the Court can lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application.

Considering the allegation levelled by the petitioner/complainant (wife), the learned MM was of the view that the respondents, respondent nos.2 to 5 herein, should be given an opportunity to cross examine the petitioner/complainant (wife) and they should further be entitled to lead evidence.

The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/wife
against the said Order have been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 07.12.2007. In fact, the same submissions have been made today.

It is the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no procedure prescribed under the said Act for recording of evidence and to conduct cross examination. The further plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was also raised before the Trial Courts, is that the only reliefs which remain to be adjudicated are in respect of maintenance, stridhan and other household goods for which affidavits have been filed by the parties.

This plea was contested by the counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5, being the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws, before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge on the ground that it was the case of an affidavit filed by one party against the affidavit of the other party and thus to ascertain the veracity of the averments made in the affidavits, the same should go through the test of cross examination. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that it is the duty of the court to make an endeavour to get to the truth of the matter and in view of the allegations and counter allegations it was necessary that the parties be given an opportunity to lead their evidence and also to enter the witness box and face the cross examination.

?28.Procedure

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.?

A reading of the aforesaid clause shows that the proceedings are to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but this would not prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 of the said Act. Thus, wide amplitude has been given to the Court taking into consideration the nature of the legislation, which is to protect the women.

The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that domestic violence is undoubtedly a human right issue and serious deterrent to development and thus to protect the rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the law has been enacted. It certainly cannot be the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court does not have the right to get
to the bottom of the matter if the Trial Court, in its wisdom, in the given facts of the case where there are two affidavits of the opposite parties, finds that the cross examination of the deponents would assist the Court in coming to the right conclusion. Such a course of action can hardly be faulted. Not only has the Trial Court exercised this power, but the revision against the same has also been dismissed and this is the third round initiated by the petitioner.

It is not a case of the Trial Court holding a detailed trial, as alleged by the petitioner/wife, but trying to find the veracity of the averments made in the affidavits of the two parties.

I am thus of the considered view that there is no ground for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the said Code.

Dismissed.
JANUARY 30, 2008 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.