LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rukumar (No)     16 August 2012

Maintenance in dv

Dear Law Experts,

My wife filled DV where she is asking for heavy maintenance.

My wife was working as softwear eng prior to marriage and after marriage for some time.

Now she says in DV that she was very much intersted in doing job and helping the husband financially. Currently she has completed her Postgraduation also. The case is still going on.

She is currently doing the job but i dont have any idea where she is working.

My question is whether the statement of wife "intersted in doing job and helping husband financially" will be taken into consideration while deciding the maintenance to wife?

Please respond.


Thx

Rupkumar




Learning

 14 Replies

JACK WELCH (Student)     16 August 2012

I faintly remember a similar judgment from Hyd High Court which relates to maintainence if wife is capable of earning kindly search refer to same.

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 )     16 August 2012

No maintenance if wife is working and well educated. Please follow the related case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Civil Revision No. 1290/99 Decided On: 24.03.2000
Appellants: Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Respondent: Rajesh Jaiswal
Hon’ble Judges:J.G. Chitre, J.

 

Counsels:For Appellant/Petitione r/Plaintiff: S.A. Mev, Adv.
For Respondents/ Defendant: S.K. Nigam, Adv.

Acts/Rules/Orders:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 and 26
D

JACK WELCH (Student)     16 August 2012

Ramasir, Even if the wife has claimed maintance under the DV Act ?

stanley (Freedom)     16 August 2012

 

No maintanence if wife is Qualified and has worked previously read the below judgement 

No interim maintenance to previously working wife

 

Context: Interim Maintenance denied in DV case when wife was working earlier
Complainant: Daman Reet Kaur
Respondent: Indermeet Singh
Judge: Pooja Talwar, MM, Mahila Court
Court: Saket District Court

IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT – SOUTH EAST DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX. NEW DELHI

CCINOI 352/3
In the matter of: -
DAMAN REET KAUR….. .. . …. .. …… COMPLAI NANT
VS.
INDERMEET SINGH JUNEJA…….. ……. … RESPONDENT

DATE OF ORDER – 18.11.2010

ORDER ON INTERIM MAINTENANCE U/S 23 OF D. V. ACT
1. I shall dispose of an application filed for interim maintenance under Section 23 Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, (henceforth referred to as the D. V. Act).

2. The complainant has alleged that she has been subjected to various forms of domestic violence by her husband, the respondent. It has been argued that the respondent is working with Pitney Bose Software Company in Sector — 63, Noida and drawing an annual salary of Rs. 20 lacs per annum. Besides this, it is also argued that he is running a profitable business of computer software in a partnership along with his friend. Ld counsel for the complainant has prayed that the complainant is facing extreme hardship as the parties are habitual of enjoying a lavish life style, and therefore, suitable maintenance may be granted for food, clothing, residence apart from other basic necessities in accordance with the standard of living of the parties such as decent education of the child, clothes and toiletries of the child, her vaccination, maid servant and her expenses, car petrol and maintenance charges, mobile bills, electricity, water expenses and suitable Life Insurance Policies etc.

3. To support their averments both the parties have placed their salary slips on record. The complainant has also placed his ITRs for the last two years where his income is depicted to be approximately Rs. 14 lacs per annum.

4. In reply, Id counsel for the respondent has vehemently denied that any form of Domestic Violence has been ever committed upon the complainant. As regards the income, it has been denied that he is earning Rs. 20 lacs per annum and admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 85,000/- per month and also submitted that the complainant is presently working with Metlife and getting more than Rs. 50,000/- per month income and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance as she is earning sufficiently to sustain herself.

5. The present application has been filed under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act for grant of maintenance. It would be essential to mention here that earlier application under Section 23 was filed along with main petition in which monetary relief was not claimed where as in the present application which is again filed under the same Section in which the monetary relief has been claimed. It has been objected to by the respondent in the reply to the application that the same does not lie and the application should have been filed under Section 25 (2) of D. V. Act. Without going into the technicalities, the application may be read as an application under the relevant provisions of the D. V. Act.

6. I have heard the submission advanced by counsels for both the parties. It has been stated by the counsel for the complainant that
the complainant has all along been very fair and honest in her complaint by submitting that she was working and had means to sustain
herself. She has not filed application for grant of interim maintenance for herself as she was earning sufficiently to maintain
herself and take care of her daily needs but today the situation has changed and she is jobless and totally dependent on the mercy of her
old and ailing parents.

7. The present application has been strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondent with a catena of judgements showing that having a
capacity to work and choosing not to work is no ground for grant of maintenance, as, admittedly the complainant is well educated lady who has been earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month from her last job. If she has chosen not to work out of her own sweet will she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own deed. In one of the judgments filed by the respondent it is well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that ‘no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself”. The gist of all the judgments filed by the respondent is that when the complainant is an able bodied person having capacity to earn and has actually been earning in the past is not entitled to receive any maintenance. When she could sustain herself by earning handsome salary in the past she would be able to get a job if she earnestly tries to search one.

8. As regards the maintenance of the child, the respondent has conceded that he is ready and willing to bear the expenditure of the child by accepting the fact that he is equally liable to maintain his child as her mother is.

9. Pursuant to what has been stated by both the counsels for the parties, I am of the view that although the complainant has been working in the past but the situation today is that she is not earning and that she has no money to sustain herself but then it cannot be denied that she is in a capacity to work and with earnest effort she shall be able to search a suitable job for herself.

10. As far as the maintenance of the child is concerned, since she is not the petitioner in the present complaint I would not be able to pass any orders as regards the maintenance for the daughter of the parties. Since the respondent has conceded to the fact that he is ready to maintain the child, he can do so voluntarily of his own accord.

11. As far as the maintenance of the complainant is concerned I am not inclined to pass any orders for maintenance.

12. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

Announced in the open Court on 18.11.2010

 

Rukumar (No)     16 August 2012

@ ramacharry Sir : You said that No maintenance to working women.

But in my case i am unable to proove that she is working right now : In this scenario whether her said statement will be taken into consideration or not?

@Stanley : Thx for the citation : Yes in my case also Interim maintenance was not given to my wife even though she was doing her postgraduation at that time. 

But my query relates with final maintenance order :

whether she will be awarded maintenance or not.

whether her said staement will be taken into consideration as i have not given any proof that she is working and earning currently.

Please respond.

Thx

Rupkumar

JACK WELCH (Student)     16 August 2012

Wow nice piece of info & what about the matrimonial house ?

I recently come across alot articles wherein this issue has been debated alot of ambiguity !!! Anyone who can throw some light on this please.

stanley (Freedom)     16 August 2012

Hire a detective and get the information as to where she is working . Get hold of her provident fund details or her IT returns and sumbit the same to court . 

Rukumar (No)     16 August 2012

@Jack Welch : what do you mean by saying nice piece of information and why the question of matrimonial house in coming in between. please clarify....

You might have been enlighten on the issue with lot of debate but please tryto share with us also...

Thx

Rupkumar


stanley (Freedom)     16 August 2012

Jack is right i presume by asking what about the matrimonial house since i presume she has asked for relief's under section 19 . Mr Rukumar read the domestic violence act and the reliefs women have in it it will enlighten you . 

19. Residence orders.-

(1) While disposing of an application under sub- section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order-
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;
(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require: Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

Rukumar (No)     16 August 2012

@Stanley : Thx for your valuable inputs

But in my case there is no question of matrimonial house, My wife has asked for Rented House.

There is no where in my query regarding Matrimonial house issue : so nothing to discuss on the same.

Regards

Rupkumar

Never Give Up (Fighter)     16 August 2012

Hi Rupkumar,

 

On what basis interim maintenance in DV case was denied ?? Please enlighten us..

 

Thanks.

Vinu (executive)     17 August 2012

Mr.Rama charry sir,

Kindly tell me if a wife is qualified person started a smale scale business but disturbed and stopped it due to the husband's harresment. Also she is having two little girl babes of age 3, 5 so can not go for 10 to 5 pm office works.Her parents are far away from her.

At his stage, What is the scope and result in interim maintenance order in DV? Still the wife wants to save the marriage and stays in the shared house hold but the husband decerted her.

rajiv_lodha (zz)     17 August 2012

Originally posted by : Vinu

Mr.Rama charry sir,

Kindly tell me if a wife is qualified person started a smale scale business but disturbed and stopped it due to the husband's harresment. Also she is having two little girl babes of age 3, 5 so can not go for 10 to 5 pm office works.Her parents are far away from her.

At his stage, What is the scope and result in interim maintenance order in DV? Still the wife wants to save the marriage and stays in the shared house hold but the husband decerted her.

Interim will be decided on merits. U have told ur story. We have to see what the opponent tells in WS & what proofs wife n Hubby brings b4 the court to further their claims.

Only then judge wil decide on this issue, But as a fact, Children will definitely get some money, for wif--.keep the fingers crossed

rajiv

rajiv_lodha (zz)     18 August 2012

Again, earning n earning capacity is looked into as u say

Other relevent points are argued, evidence is led.

I do not believe that interim is usually granted. It is case specific. In my case, she was "previously earning, took long leave to play the trics+child was with me", so manit refused.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register