Fix maintenance as per price index and hubby

Roshani was the woman working or not. Now taking this logic further, if a woman earns 9000 the court does not grant any maintenance to her...this is strange. one requires money whether self earned or from maintenance, how come then a self earned amount be it 6000 or 9000 become enough for one to maintain herself? 

So what about the SC judgement that Avnish had posted? On academic ground I am trying to figure out. Isn't it punishing women who earn low? 

Thanks Roshni, as I said you are posting very relevant news and judgments. 

Can someone post the full judgement please? 

@ Author and Ambika


The present position of law (maint.), from its bare reading is evident that the following principles emerge from the judgments till date:-

A. Maintenance depends upon the summation of all the facts of the situation [as laid down in Re.: Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar Vs. Raj Kumari AIR 1971 SC 234].

B. For granting maintenance, the scale and mode of living, the age, habits, wants and class of the life of the parties has to be regarded [as laid down in Re.: Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar Vs. Raj Kumari AIR 1971 SC 23].

C. Maintenance being such that the wife could live in a reasonable comfort; considering her status and mode of life which she was used to while living with her husband [as laid down in Re.: Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 7]

D. During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, which may take a considerable time to attain finality, the wife cannot be forced to face starvation till she is subsequently granted maintenance from the date of the filing of the suit [as laid down in Re.: Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra and Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 234 ].

E. Maintenance must necessarily encompass a provision for residence. Maintnenace is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. [as laid down in Re.: Komalam Amma Vs. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. SLP (C) No. 3670/2005 decided on 14th November, 2008]

F. Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. [as laid down in Re.: Mangat Mal Vs. Punni Devi (1995) 6 SCC 88]

G. Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and entertaiment. [as laid down in Re. : Maharani Kesarkunverba v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1960 SC 1343]

All authorities quoted detailed text readers may find in www.indiankanoon.org


Now there is a widespread view apt to both genders situations pan India and that is what a particular section says ‘wow great judgment for wife’ [and in turn you get I Pods] but you (generic) are overlooking the very principals of ‘equality’ in the name of throwing a largesse ‘welfare to only one spouse’ which is the main bone of contentions among prudent minds and all these results into on and off skirmish at progressive legal discussion forums such as LCI - Family Law postings.

Now, some eye opener quotes if you (@ Roshni B) claims to be ‘a just’ custodian of “for justice and dignity” well claiming such @ aka, it itself is misnomer to prudent mind …………..

A.Sources of laws.

1.Laws do not lie in the pages of books.
2.Laws lie in the minds of men.
3.Pages of books are just alibi.


B.Laws in practice.

1.Facts and laws remaining the same interpretation can be anything as their lordships please.
2. Ignore the facts and laws and prevail the opinion and that is the law in the case in hand.


"Wife can say thousand lies and those will be accepted as true.
You will say 1000 truths and those will be treated as lies.
Great men in India say that it is a male dominated society."

- Dr. Jogeshwar Mahanta

"Over Legislation is not necessarily a virtue. It often leads to misuse of law."

- Arun Jaitley
(BJP Leader, Former Law Minister & Lawyer)

Now some more gyan for researching new member @ Ambika


“I used to date her once upon a time every now and then, and now I just get the court dates, every now and then. After meeting a partner it seems life is all about dates dates and dates.” This is what most of the guys undergoing cases tell me. Offlate even girls undergoing cases too have been calling up the helpline and displaying the same mindsets stating “Date parr to abhi bhi jaate hain lekin paristhiti kuch alag hai” (translated for non hindi readers as Dates still happen in life but only the circumstances [ref. to court dates] are different”

So, best wishes to you all who are discovering (means reporting here) both versions of main bone of contentions of a couple who are in litigation.

Thank you Prabahkar Sir for posting the judgement so promptly. 

Thank you TajobsIndia Sir for such help. It will come handy to my friend along with the judgement Prabhakar Sir has posted. 

Main Extract Of the Judgment:

Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful  income never   surfaces.   Tax   avoidance   is   the   norm.   Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view.  From  the  various  judicial  precedents,  the  under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into  consideration  while  deciding  an  application  under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are:

(1)     Status of the parties.

(2)     Reasonable wants of the claimant.

(3)     The independent  income  and  property  of  the

claimant.

(4)     The number of persons, the non applicant has to

maintain.

(5)     The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar   life   style   as   he/she   enjoyed   in   the matrimonial home.

(6)     Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.

(7)     Provisions  for  food,  clothing,  shelter,  education, medical  attendance  and  treatment  etc.  of  the applicant.

(8)     Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

(9)     Some   guess   work   is   not   ruled   out   while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all   the   sources   or   correct   sources   are   not disclosed.

(10)   The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

(11)   The amount awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.all   the   sources   or   correct sources   are   not disclosed.

(10)   The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

(11)   The amount awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.

Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income.

true!!!..............................................but it more applicable to applicants (i.e. wives mostly)

It is strange that wife should be in the same comfort which is was enjoying in the house of husband

What about comfort of husband ?

Who will take care of him ?

  If she is entitled to money husband is also entitled for his matrimonial rights.

It will give rise to separation as greedy wifes will fight,take maintenance and enjoy with their lovers.