maintenance

1. Yes

2. Maint.is not given for equating the status rather it is derived out of the status of parties pre and psot.

3. Under change of circumstance it can be appealed by other party.

she cannot ask for recovery of exact amount of loss , but she can get a share in his on paper income.

She can claim for her maintenance alone and not the amount she can get as salary 

I agree with Mr. ArunKumar, when he said yes to your first question. 

what in fact you are talking about is opportunity cost which should be brought to notice in a powerful way. This opportunity cost make so many  women losers. There are cases where with very good qualifications women are not allowed to go in for work or full time work. Had they taken up work, they would have progressed well. When the economic insecurities are not there in a woman's life, she is more likely to forgo maintenance. Opportunity costs argument, whether she wins or not, need to be put forth in a strong manner. the lost opportunities would impact on her current efforts to compete for a good position. What she may expect is a relatively junior position now relative to where she had been, if she had not given up her job. Put that factor in your argument, irrespective of whether citations are there or not , to support your arguments. 

Please go through the link. This would throw more light on Opportunity cost--a good reference to read to flesh out the arguments, again irrespective of whether the case is won or not. The important thing is to highlight these issues in the hope that the realities of women's life would be taken into consideration for securing women's entitlement to a financial secure and dignified life. 

https://jfi.sagepub.com/content/3/2/251.abstract

Hope it helps. 

@ RG,

There is no issue to highlight called "opportunity lost" cause based just for the simple reason that once errant wife raise "oportunity" cause and Mr Prabhakar start referring "Labor Compensation Laws and Bhopal Compensation" into errant wife "compensation vis-a-vis opportunity cost" issues then it is must that one alos see its misuse such as below news item which is more relevant to Indian errant wife's context than the link quoted by you coming from the stables of UNIFEM sponsered research which are not applicable to Indian context.


Here is referred news for your reading pleasure for India by an Indian errant women; [what attention I am drawing is that even without "opportunity lost" how wife's make it an "all opportunity gained case"  


Title: Couple fakes divorce to win 3BHK Mhada flat

By: Shibu Thomas, TNN, Aug 27, 2010, 01.28am IST, Mumbai - City - The Times of India

MUMBAI: Would you "divorce'' your spouse for a flat in an upscale neighbourhood in Mumbai? In a case that illustrates the extent to which Mumbaikars will go for a roof over their heads in the city, a Bandra resident produced a "divorce deed'' to prove that she was estranged from her husband and eligible for a 3BHK Mhada flat in Versova.

The matter came to light when one of the unsuccessful aspirants to the flat challenged Mhada's allotment, claiming the Bandra resident was still living with her husband and the "divorce deed'' was fabricated.

In December 2008, Mhada had invited applications for the allotment of HIG flats—measuring over 900 sq ft and costing Rs 56.24 lakh each—in Versova, Andheri. The market value for a similar flat in the area, according to conservative estimates, would be over Rs 2 crore.

Forty-seven-year-old Seema Pawar applied for a flat and won the lottery. But one of the conditions for the allotment was that the applicant or his/her spouse must not own a flat within BMC limits. Seema filed an affidavit stating her family didn't.

Subhas Savaskar, who did not win the lottery and was placed on the waiting list, approached Mhada in July 2009 and complained that Seema's husband Rahul Pawar (57) owned a flat in Bandra Reclamation.

When Mhada sought an explanation from Seema, she claimed the flat was owned by her sister-in-law and her family had rented the place. Mhada's chief vigilance officer, however, found out from the housing society in January 2010 that Rahul owned the flat.

Mhada once again issued a notice to Seema, asking why a first information report should not be lodged against her. Seema replied in May this year that she had divorced her husband way back in March 2008 and furnished a "divorce deed by mutual consent''.

Savaskar finally moved the high court when Mhada failed to take any action. "The divorce deed was drawn up on a Rs 100 stamp paper,'' said Shoaib Memon, the counsel for Savaskar, adding that such a document was totally illegal. "It has no sanctity in the eyes of the law.''

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce can be obtained only by filing a petition in the family court. "A Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by a written deed or through an out-of-court settlement,'' said Memon.

The petitioner also pointed out that the stamp paper itself was suspect; there was no serial number on the document and it was signed by an advocate instead of the couple. The petition also alleged that the couple were still mentioned in the voters' list as sharing the same apartment in Bandra.

The case is scheduled to come up for hearing again on September 7.

(The names of the couple have been changed to protect their identities)
shibu.thomas1(@)timesgroup.com

Source:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Couple-fakes-divorce-to-win-3BHK-Mhada-flat/articleshow/6442562.cms#ixzz0xl5MInV1

Now misuse by what you call errant wife does not prevent one to put forth opportunity cost in one's argument. Not all cases are cases of misuse of law, and I cannot quote percentage data simply because I do not have them. But the common sense would indicate  assuming that the case is genuine, this factor needs to be highlighted in a strong manner. 

About Mr. Prabhakar's posting, he has already explained his rationale of the posting. 

Thanks for the citation, Mr. Arun. But it does not dilute the need for highlighting opportunity cost while arguing, if one really has lost opportunities for moving up the ladder. 

or one really has lost the opportunities to even go near the ladder!

@ RG,

I understood what you were trying to say hence showed the real side too to aam adami which dilutes the "opportunity funda of yours" wherein in this News item case it was the greed in the absence of any divorce she is showing divorce just for consuming some lakhs of property so where "opportunity argument" should lead too when society by errant wives are now-a-days moving to "opportunity in adversial situations too that also by women" which really is point to  worry for common man like me more than genuine cases.


You see the logic which I also agree to what you said but that is society created by errant wives .......one side of coin has been shown too many occassions and when real side flips then "justification" comes which clouds further the real facts.


Bottom line kindly dig %, news items and all India stats. too before putting UNIFEM sponsered links for common man's consumption then we will buy the argument.

Quoting

"or one really has lost the opportunities to even go near the ladder! "

No, one has not but talk of "equity" as always not one sided is what I will say till by last breadth.

From my side you can go to any height of ladder and infact I will come forward to put you first of all to that ladder but 'balance" it well when you start climbing up and don't crib when horizons views gets clearer and cleaner as you rise and rise......


PS: You here is contextual.