wife's right for interim maintenance

Mr. Prabhakar , is it possible to upload this important  judgement in knowledge sharing section, so that it would be easier for the readers to refer to it than going through innumerable threads to hunt for it.

There are many wives who wrongly represent that they are not having any Job inspite of having one in view of getting high interim/final maintenance amount.

@Prabhakar,

Could you please post such Judgements where wfie is at fault and was totally denied Interim/Final maintenance and upload those important judgements to knowledge sharing section?

Thanks,

Kiran

@ Prabhakar,

1. It was nice of you as a ADVOCATE to bring this judgment to public domain.


2. Do you as a ADVOCATE have guts to bring "one single Judgment"  to public domain where any Judge has said similarly about a INDIAN WIFE who also lie about their employment / earning capacity ? NO na....


3. I bet you can't have guts because there are NONE (Judgments) in entire Indian Judiciary where any Judge has said similarly about a Indian WIFE and your postings here are revolving around commerical activities to get new clients (WIFE) (such as your earlier 498a post which at that time created stir in LCI Forum) and nothing else otherwise no other LCI member ADVOCATE brings such biasness into public domain to start chain mails and or chain postings which you all witnessed not that long ago here in LCI forum.
 

4. BTW this single bench Judgment has no value as of today and this Judgment is OVERRULED by a Division Bench and was applicable only for Maharashtra State at that point of time, today it can't be even quoted as proudly quoted by you. Get yourself corrected now !


Now, keep smiling............

"judgment shows how some of the husbands tell lies out of their teeth before hon'ble courts "

1. Oh

2. Ok

3. The point was not to irritate you and or extract nice worded post facto 'justification' but to ask you to follow your own wordings posted here in one of the threads "single bench judgments are not useful as it is overruled by division bench and further ......"  So this Judgment posted by you harmoniously construted reading with above quote / unquote is of no intrinsic value except showing off "an eye for an eye" which was the point I stressed and if you get irritated and start justifying left and right then it is your issues and not 83 K + readers issue.

4. BTW any counter justification on VI part factual article of a ld. advocate who mentions where the actual money is and to refresh you see at your leisure the six part series appeared after your nice informative past "498a article" by clicking  https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Some-Specimens-of-the-Nobel-and-Learned-Profession-Part-I-23819.asp

5. Hope as a Advocate you may not get to show public display of iritation when such counter replies pops up in these interactive forums.

Best wishes to you......

What is  commercial about posting a judgement? Today I posted one supreme court judgement which is pro woman, and I am a non legal person. 

Read it as about posting a pro woman judgement? And how one man/woman can talk about whether something issue or not an issue with  83K+ readers? 

Carry on Mr. Prabhakar with your good work. There are many many among 83K+ who awaits your postings and read them with interest.

I read the judgement. Thanks to Mr Prabhakar.

But how does it qualify to 'endorse' it as if it has become a strong caselaw and a landmark judgement to accord it a 'generic & de facto' right for wives to claim interim maintenance the next moment they are estranged from the husband?

I disagree if anyone thinks that way.

The judgement simply put light on the facts (which is worth looking at, I believe) such as ....

• How the Wife and her lawyer argued and put her faacts infront of cout.
• How husband and his lawyer argued and how hon. judge not appreciated his evidence of his income and felt that husband approaching with unclean hands and hiding true facts The husband lost it b'cos apparently he wud have made his weak by presenting a conflicting scenario in front of the court. This is a specific case of merits and nothing more.

How can we stereotyoe all husbands that all husbands indulge into such things?

Look at the sentences....

It is common knowledge that (only those) husbands (plural to suggest all husbands) who desire to fail to maintain their wives ...............(hence only those kind of husbands) create evidence of termination of their services or contracts so soon as the marriage breaks down, parties separate or the wife makes her claim for maintenance 

There is no reason for an otherwise qualified and physically capable husband (it refers to the husband in this case only ...It doesn't say in plural as Husbands) to have to be dismissed or terminated from service or to resign his job or discontinue his career............... (A good judgement by hon judge b'cos this individual husband indeed presented conflicting scenario and didn't deserve any favour.  But it can not be generalised to stamp all the husbands.)

Otherwise .......

• No Husband Will deliberately go backrupt and incur loss in his business just to avoid likely interim maint suit of his estraged wife.
• No husband has to take permission from his estranged wife for his moves/plans in regards to the his career or penchant for money.
• No husband is answerable to estranged wife or even the court as to why he lost his job in recession or even if he underperformed in job as compared to other colleagues and that's how he lost his job or for whatsoever he reason. industries like travel, diamonds, IT, BPO etc people lose jobs for the reasons not under their uncontrol and b'cos of global phenomena and it is beyond anybody's imagination or purview of assessments or jurisdictions 
• No husband is answerable to estranged wife or even the court as to How could he fall sick to lose the job or why he wants to take some time out for other activities.

it's his personal business

This is a specific case on merits and nothing more, and it's not a turning point or landmark case or 'a condition precedent'  for husbands to get frightened and for wives to make jubiliation out of it.

@ To the very first replier to this thread


1. "You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman" ~Jane Galvin Lewis


2. "Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their opressors." ~ Evelyn Cunningham


3. "Being a lady is an attitude."  ~ Chuck Woolery, Love Connection

4. Readers hope, a pro-women who is non legal person has good understanding of some of the above most famous gender liberation quotes !

For me being pro woman is to have substantive equality and equity before we reach equality. 

Any quotes have their own limitations. 

That said, I do not want to indulge in anymore talk with the author who has directed his precious knowledge to a lady who is all for equity ( as against gender neutrality and formal equality) and women's legitimate rights. 

The comments which I have not replied to are those which I think are not worth any reply from the same lady.

For readers: please read pro woman and pro woman judgement in the context. In the context it means equity based judgement...

There is nothing wrong in posting any judgment, whether it is in favor of women. There are so many judgments, which do not favor women.

Justice A S Anand, who once had said that "Fight for gender equality is not a fight against men. It is a fight against traditions that have chained them ------ a fight against attitudes that are ingrained in the society --- it is a fight against the system ---- a fight against proverbial ‘Laxman Rekha’ which is different for men and different for women. The society must rise to the occasion. It must recognize and accept the fact that men and women are equal partners in life. They are individuals who have their own identity"

And finally everyone knows who is leagal person and who is not and what is legality.

1. Absolutely.


2. There is no reason for stopping anyone for posting and or reading and or replying to either of sides (spouse and or persons) Judgments here or outside the forum. However what is objected in terms of keeping harmony of the LCI Family Law Forum is not to escalate recent cold issues with opening quote and un-quote such as by Prabhakar a Advocate here and reproduced here is the objection from other side to his opening quote “shows how some of the husbands tell lies out of their teeth before hon'ble courts”. It is called "an eye for an eye" ball game and remember the other side is equally too good at it too. Leave the choice to Admin. /partner of LCI Forum if he wants harmony in Family Law Forum maintained or shall give free hand to both sides to repeat the eye for eye counters of both sides as is evident from reading past messages of last 4 months culminating into Attn. Memebers "neutral" posting by Admin. for members to behave which includes Advocate members too? Decide yourself "persons".......


3. In, 1877, Nelson , a Madras Judge, expressed the view that the Hindu law administered by the Anglo-Indian Courts was a "phantom of the brain, imagined by Sanskritists without law, and lawyers wihtout Sanskrit." However, if a Gender Researcher replier here is in doubt on this apt quoting then check with Admin. / Partner of LCI forum Mr Y Prakash practicing before Madras HC if this to be the earliest truth of Common Law in Indian context oozed some 2+ centuries ago from the very same HC he is practicing before today in 21st. Century !

4. If a Gender Researcher replier professes "equity" before "equality" then shall profess "between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail" too. However if a Gender Researcher replier is again in doubt then come with clean hands and talk of "equality" before Law too by being just pro-person and not pro-men and or pro-women as in reply here a Gender Researcher self - obsessedly professed !.

A gender researcher has explained what she meant by pro woman judgement. In some threads she has also explained that Equity  is a process to reach the goal of equality. This process takes into account the socio cultural, political and historical contexts. And a gender researcher also talks about substantive rather then formal equality. Equality cant be realised unless equity concerns are integrated in the structures of society. 

I anyways do not take any comment personally. My reply is a general one and not directed to any particular person. I need not profess about my quality of research and worth of work I am doing. Mine may be a drop in the ocean and as a researcher I know it is an ever learning process. 

And of course  I refuse to be bullied and dragged into personal battles, and attacks.