A working able bodied working women who has worked in the past and has wilfully left her job just to claim maintanence is not eligible for maintanence . There were some judgements posted in this forum too .
In Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) H1991 air (1991 (2) SCC 375)
when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised by the respondent-husband it has to
be satisfactorily proved by tendering evidence to substantiate that he was
already married. 20. In the instant case the evidence on record has been found
sufficient by the Courts below by recording findings of fact that earlier
marriage of respondent was established. 21. In that view of the matter, the
application so far as claim of maintenance of the wife is concerned stands
dismissed. 22. That brings us to the other question relating to adequacy of the
quantum of maintenance awarded to the child. It is not in dispute that when the
Claim Petition was filed, Rs.500/- was claimed as maintenance as that was the
maximum amount which could have been granted because of the un-amended Section
125. But presently, there is no such limitation in view of the amendment as
referred to above. 23. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there was no amendment made to the
Claim Petition seeking enhancement. We find that this is a too technical plea.
As a matter of fact. Section 127 of the Code permits increase in the quantum.
The application for maintenance was filed on 1 -9-1995. The order granting
maintenance was passed by the learned JMFC on 31-7-1999. The High Court enhanced
the quantum awarded to the child from Rs.350/- to Rs.500/- with effect from the
order passed by learned JMFC. No dispute has been raised regarding enhancement
and in fact there was a concession to the prayer for enhancement before the High
Court as recorded in the impugned judgment. Considering the peculiar facts of
the case, we feel that the amount of maintenance to the child can be enhanced to
Rs.850/- with effect from today. 24.. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
has submitted that as a humanitarian gesture, the respondent No.2 agrees to pay
a lump sum amount to
settle the
dispute. In case the respondent No.2 pays a sum of rupees two lakhs only within
a period of four months to the appellant, the same shall be in full and final
settlement of the claim of respondent No.3 for maintenance. While fixing the
quantum we have taken note of the likely return as interest in case it is
invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank, and the likely increase in the
quantum of maintenance till respondent No.3 attains majority.. Till deposit is
made, the quantum fixed by this order shall be paid. If the respondent No.2
wants to make lump sum payment in terms of this order, the amount shall be paid
by the Bank draft in the name of respondent No.3 with appellant as mother
guardian. The amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit with monthly interest
payment facility till respondent No.3 attains majority. 25. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.
Also visit this link below for various judements wherein maintanence is denied .
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/LIST-OF-ALL-JUDGEMENTS-WHERE-MAINTENANCE-DENIED-TO-WIVES-86215.asp
