if there are no children , going by facts of this case i stand by my earlier comments.
happy diwali to all of you.
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
if there are no children , going by facts of this case i stand by my earlier comments.
happy diwali to all of you.
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
please add to above with regards to delhi .
hedevil hydraheaded (non professional ) 05 November 2010
Dr. Bharati,
This judgement is posted may be several times on this forum, but I am finding it hard to locate. So I am pasting the thread which would take you to the judgement referred by Sibashish ji.
VictimOfBiasLaw (Professional) 05 November 2010
Maintence to wife under crpc-125 is depend on which state wife belong to ??
State like Gujarat or Maharashtra , in this case maintaince is less if wife is educated ??
Please clearify
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
the case posted by hydra headed facts are very different , so may not apply to your case.
Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist) 05 November 2010
Just check whether the following article may help u, which is below,
With the passage of time, the ‘home maker’ status of women in India has undergone considerable changes. A woman is no more tagged as just a housewife. Infact, she has successfully established herself as a working woman. It was only until recent past, that they were not completely aware of their rights like right to work, equal treatment, property, maintenance and many others. However, today they not only recognize their rights but also make sure to claim them.
This is most evident in the cases of “maintenance pursuant to separation or divorce”. The last decade had witnessed a rapid growth in cases of divorce and separation. Indian law contains provisions for maintenance under different laws like Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 24 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also under personal laws like the Shariat Law, etc. These laws provide that the benefit can be claimed by women even prior to divorce during separation. Her claim for maintenance is also extendable to her minor children. These laws carry general exemption that a woman will no longer be entitled for any maintenance in instance of remarriage or if they get converted to another religion.
Initially, a misconception existed that a working woman is not entitled to claim maintenance as she is earning and is thus able to maintain herself. Now, based on the judgements in cases like Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi1 and Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai2, it is evident that she can claim maintenance even though she is earning. The SC of India, in this regards, has ruled that an estranged woman can claim maintenance from her husband in spite of her efforts to earn a monthly income if that is not enough for her maintenance. It also clarifies that the expression ‘Unable to maintain herself’ does not require a wife to be absolute destitute before she can apply for maintenance.
The Delhi High Court has further clarified few more matters like, for husband, being jobless does not work as an excuse for not paying maintenance3. Indian law also makes provision under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for claiming interim maintenance expenses for proceedings even during pendency of proceedings4.
Though the judiciary supports women in cases of maintenance, it does not overlook men. Recently, there were instances where the Courts of India had passed reverse orders compelling wives, who earn substantially, to pay maintenance to their husbands if such a woman decides to walk out of a marriage, for whatever reason5,6. Also, there are instances where though a woman was not working but still her professional qualification became a barrier to the quantum of maintenance that she received. This existed, despite the fact that their husbands were well employed and drawing handsome salaries. This reflects to the general contention of the judiciary to the effect that a woman being professionally qualified will get professional assignments or a job with a handsome salary7.
Though, maintenance laws, in current times, treat men and women on equal footing, it is still evident that the disadvantaged working women gain from these provisions.
- Palak Lotiya (views expressed in the article are that of the author)
Source/Link:
hedevil hydraheaded (non professional ) 05 November 2010
This is the judgement referred to by Advocate Sebasish. Senbasish Ji, any take on Avnish's above mentioned statement?
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
just see the link below and posts there also
hedevil hydraheaded (non professional ) 05 November 2010
There is no link posted below, so please post the link.
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher ) 05 November 2010
Devil Ji, I suppose Avnish Ji would have referred the link below Ashutosh Ji's post. I am cutting and pasting from the link the following.
MUMBAI: The earning capacity and professional qualifications of a woman are to be considered when deciding on permanent alimony in a divorce case, the Bombay high court has said even as it declined a former air-hostess's plea to increase the amount.
A division bench comprising Justices B H Marlapalle and Ravi Deshpande rejected the petition taking into account the fact that Jaspreet, a resident of Mumbai, had obtained a diploma in fashion designing and planned to make a career in the city.
The judges also nixed the contention of her ex-husband Jaspal, a senior employee with Air India, that there was no need for him to pay up and asked him to keep giving her Rs 20,000 per month or a lumpsum of Rs 20 lakh.
"If she (Jaspreet) desires to stay in Mumbai or Delhi, it cannot be accepted that she will be without any professional or employment income in fashion design or any other related field,'' said the judges. "She must stand on her own as a professional and she appears to have made her own arrangements with her sister to stay in Mumbai by choice and obviously to pursue a career. She cannot expect, as a matter of legal right, that the amount of permanent alimony must include the financial requirements for her stay in Mumbai or for that matter in Delhi.''
Jaspal had moved the family court for divorce in 1997 after one-and-a-half years of marriage, alleging cruelty. Subsequently, the couple obtained divorce by mutual consent. While Jaspreet challenged the alimony amount of Rs 20,000, Jaspal opposed the alimony arrangement itself. Jaspreet claimed that her ex-husband earned around Rs 2 lakh per month and produced his income-tax returns between 2001 and 2003 which ranged from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 24 lakh. Jaspreet claimed 20-30% of this income as permanent alimony, arguing that she was "unemployed and was entitled to live a comfortable life till such time that she gets remarried''.
Jaspal opposed paying any alimony, claiming that Jaspreet had suppressed information about her employment. His lawyers further pointed out that it was not conceivable that Jaspreet, with a qualification in fashion designing, would remain unemployed. "On the contrary, in a city like Mumbai or Delhi she will get professional assignments or a job with a handsome salary,'' they argued.
The court upheld the order of alimony, but declined to enhance it. It said that if she chooses to remain in Mumbai, "she cannot claim any provision for her residence''. The court also said that if the amount was paid in a lumpsum, Jaspreet could get a headstart in her career.
On a request by Jaspal, the HC stayed the order for six weeks on condition that he continues to pay the monthly maintenance.
Read more: Job prospects count in alimony: Court - The Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Job-prospects-count-in-alimony-Court/articleshow/4477253.cms#ixzz14QP5zxcQ
Many times some advocates here are giving a blanket answer that if wife is working, there is no way, she will get alimony. The below write up on judgement shows a one and a half year married life, previously working wife, well qualified but unemployed. Though she could not get what she claimed for, but non the less the permanent alimony as such was not denied to her.
Imagine, now a woman who has dedicated long years in marital life, but just because husband does not want to share increased prosperity for reasons best known to him( he is now khomachewala, rehadiwala, and Chai wala--meaning hiding his income in the grab of deductions), is claiming for the permanent alimony. Though she is educated, can she earn what she would have, if her husband in her long marital life had not stopped her from entering the job market? After all years of experience matter in the job market.
There are lot of issues involved with each case which may be unique in itself, so my point is that especially when some advocate say as a routine answer, "if she work there is no chance she would get alimony or interim maintenance", it is not digested easily, especially in the times when common persons have easy access to these judgments and are intelligent enough to interpret. I am not questioning the integrity of advocates or their knowledge but such replies, create a wrong impression in the minds of both husbands and wives. While husband go all out to become a Khomachewala, the wife remains totally confused. And after all, such interpretations can't be purely legal but are always grounded in the social and cultural realities, where factors like age, the duration of marital life along with years dedicated to raising child/ren, the why of why wife did not work, the impact of all these years of living as a house wife on her prospects of getting a job, the type of job she would now get, the people against whom she has to compete and the chances if she would be able to stand the fierce competition, the constraints, if any, and there are many, regarding her mobility matter and consequently decide her financial security( on which depends now different aspects of her social security).
In June 2009 I cleared Public Sevice Commission Exam and got employed .
Cout ordered to pay him 8000pm from the date of order as he was earning 60000 and more +purks where as my salary is 20000pm.
Golden Rule
According to a Supreme Court ruling, a woman is entitled to maintenance if her independent income is insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to while living with her husband.
Many are forgetting this fact so remember this golden rule.
In a case :
High Court denies monthly compensation to a woman making Rs80,000 a month
The Delhi high court accepted the woman’s Rs80,000 monthly income as sufficient for self-maintenance. “Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and husband both are earning and having good salary, an order is not required,” Justice S N Dhingra said while allowing the aggrieved husband’s petition.
Explaining the phrase “unable to maintain herself”, the apex court said: “...it would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and not the efforts made by her after the desertion”.
Another judgement https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/very-Imp-Judgement-Maintenance-Related-25699.asp
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
facts of each case are different , temporary and permanent alimony depend on several factors on both sides. but in 2009-2010 Supreme court view is that an educated professional able-bodied female without any children shud try to maintain herself , so they are not giving high alimony as it used to be 10 years back. but if a female is earning even 1/3 rd of salary of husband SC has denied interim alimony to lady.
these are changing trends in society. i m again sorry to say that some advocates misguide parties to continue litigation. like a lady getting 1/3 rd income of her husband is most unlikely to get interim alimony in absence of any child. they will still suggest to file 125 cpc.
cases should be tried to be settled amicably at earliest , as litigation does not give any benefit in long term except financial , health and invluable produtive years time.
Avnish Kaur (Consultant) 05 November 2010
read 125 crpc instead of 125 cpc above
Dear @Avnish Kaur,
Cases should be tried to be settled amicably at earliest , as litigation does not give any benefit in long term except financial , health and invluable produtive years time.
Yes, you are absolutely right.You and Renuka Gupta are doing a great work for indian society.
Think about all the women in your life who have had an impact, it's a great time to step back and thank them for what they do.
It may be several women who just believe in human rights and justice and very loving, caring individuals who see a need, and you are one of them .
My many many thanks to you.
(Ek Thanks Renuka ka ke liye aur ek Avnish ke liye)
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
