Maintenance

you are what stage of your hering . you try for mutual consent divorce for one time alimony . that is ideal as Dv will take some time to settle in the mean time arrange out of court settlement and file for mutual divorceas one time alimony. and get fee from the issue.

1. Is your wife working or in a capacity to work not working just to live as a parasite on your hard earned money - then she is not entitled to any maintenance, there are end number of judgements on that. These Judgments should help you :- Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008 The Noble Justice Dhingra in action again. This time delivers justice in a HMA case, Parnab Kumar ChakarborthyVsRuma Chakarborthy-2008 Here is what he had to say: • 3. The petitioner in his petition has stated that the learned Court has taken into account his gross salary while his net salary after deduction was hardly Rs.5,000/-. He had to maintain two houses. He was working in Bhiwadi in Rajasthan as Shift In charge, his daughter from the earlier deceased wife was living at his ancestral house at RaiBarelli with his ailing mother. Thus, he had to maintain two units; one at RaiBarelli and other at Rajasthan. He also pleaded that the learned ADJ had not taken into account the fact that the wife was a professional beautician, who had done diploma in beauty-culture and hair dressing and in the bio data supplied to him at the time of marriage, it was stated that she was a freelance beautician doing the work of beautician. He further stated that the account of expenditure given by the wife would show that she was living in luxury, which was not possible out of the meager income of her father, who was a retired Naval Officer and since she was qualified and was spending a lot so, there was a presumption that she was earning and she had not come to the Court with clean hands. Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008 POSTED BY PRAVEEN AT 7:50 AM NO COMMENTS: woman who work need no maintenace Publication: Times Of India Delhi;Date: May 14, 2009;Section: Times City;Page: 4 ‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ Smriti Singh | TNN New Delhi: Can a “well qualified” woman capable of getting a decent job seek maintenance from her “not so qualified” husband? The trial court says no. Dismissing the concept of women being the “weaker s*x” and urging them to work rather than being dependent on their “patiparmeshwar”, a district court rejected the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her mentally disturbed and unemployed husband. “True, an able-bodied person can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well-versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case,” additional district judge Rajender Kumar Shastri said. “According to Hindu mythology, a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared into oblivion now. Women are not parasites. The concept of “patiparmeshwar” has already been jettisoned and is substituted by equal partner in life. We cannot allow this better half to remain a protege of her male partner for life,” ADJ Shastri added. Seeking a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month along with Rs 21,000 as litigation expenses, the woman had knocked on the court’s door after her husband had filed a divorce case in the court alleging that his wife was having an affair with an another man and was treating him cruelly. In her petition, the woman said she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her father for survival. She also claimed that her husband was employed and was earning Rs 20,000 per month as salary. Her husband denied all the claims. Filing a reply through his counsel M K Magan, the man claimed that he was earlier working in some shop and earned a meagre salary. After the turbulence in his married life, he lost his job. He alleged that his wife had abandoned her son also and eloped with another man. He also claimed that he was receiving treatment at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahadra. During deliberations, the court found out that the applicant was unemployed. The court also noted that the woman was a graduate and her husband had only cleared his senior secondary examination. Cautious about not “pre judging” the case at the initial stage, the court after hearing the arguments, noted that it could not shut its eyes from the allegations made by the husband which were supported with evidence. “It will be unjust to emburden the husband to pay maintenance to the wife who is equally able bodied and rather more qualified and competent to earn,” ADJ Shastri said while dismissing the application. ‘WIFE EQUALLY ABLE’ What the judge said It will be unjust to burden the husband to pay an amount of maintenance to wife who is equally able and rather more qualified and competent to earn With development of society, women are not parasites upon male members of their family The vestiges of male chauvinism are being weeded out. We cannot allow this better half (woman) to remain protege of her male partner forever NOT THE FIRST TIME January ’09 A court in Karkardooma had ordered a woman to pay her husband maintenance this year ‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ https://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk... 1 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AM February ’09 Court rejected maintenance plea of woman stating she cannot seek maintenance to enrich her lifestyle May 13, ’09 Woman denied maintenance for being more qualified and capable to work ‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ https://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk... 2 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AM POSTED BY PRAVEEN AT 7:47 AM NO COMMENTS: HMA 24 Judgemetns 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay) BOMBAY HIGH COURT SangeetaPiyush Raj Vs Piyush Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable - However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable. ------------ --------- - 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Smt.Gayatri Singh Vs Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh &Anr. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance - Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance rightly rejected. ------------ --------- ------ ------------ --------- -- 1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.) MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Smt.IndiraGangele Vs Shailendra Kumar Gangele Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the maintenance pendentelite is from the date of application - if specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding, order may be made operative from date of order. ------------ --------- --------- -- 1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala) KERALA HIGH COURT NandakumarParrat Vs Sreekala Rani Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed? Held -No. ------------ --------- ------ ------------ --------- --- 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras) MADRAS HIGH COURT Rohini Vs R.Durairaj Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly dismissed by trial Court. ------------ --------- --------- 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT KuldipKaur @ CharanjitKaur Vs Karam Singh Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendentelite to the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance - Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever - Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month - Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the revision. ------------ --------- -- 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Govind Singh Vs Smt.Vidya Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse. 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay) BOMBAY HIGH COURT SangeetaPiyush Raj Vs Piyush Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable - However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable. ------------ --------- - 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Smt.Gayatri Singh Vs Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh &Anr. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance - Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance rightly rejected. ------------ --------- ------ ------------ --------- -- 1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.) MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Smt.IndiraGangele Vs Shailendra Kumar Gangele Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the maintenance pendentelite is from the date of application - if specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding, order may be made operative from date of order. ------------ --------- --------- -- 1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala) KERALA HIGH COURT NandakumarParrat Vs Sreekala Rani Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed? Held -No. ------------ --------- ------ ------------ --------- --- 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras) MADRAS HIGH COURT Rohini Vs R.Durairaj Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly dismissed by trial Court. ------------ --------- --------- 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT KuldipKaur @ CharanjitKaur Vs Karam Singh Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendentelite to the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance - Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever - Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month - Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the revision. ------------ --------- -- 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan) RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Govind Singh Vs Smt.Vidya Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance pendentelite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse. Cases where maintenance pendentelite is denied to a wife on ground of misconduct Colleagues to quote and use this wherever possible i.e. section 18 HAMA, or interim alimony of CRPC 125, or in HMA section 24 itself.. Seven case laws on whether the misconduct of an applicant should be considered while deciding the interim alimony -: 1.Patna High Court case of Sadhana Devi V/s. Bijendra Kumar & others of 3rd March 1998 in para 6 and 7 court has not accepted the saying of wife for not staying with her husband as he is not working, because even at the time of marriage he was not working and pursuing his studies. Thus conduct of wife was wrong and Court has argued it in detailed and refuse her interim alimony. 2. Shrichand V/s. IV Additional dist. Judge, Allahabad, SantoshKumari,I(1986) DMC 91 All, Narendra Kumar Mehta V/s. Suraj Mehta,I(1982) AP 100 etc - The grant of maintenance pendent elite and expenses under section 24 is discretionary with the court though such discretion has to be judicially exercised. The guiding principle would appear to be that if the applicant has no independent means he or she is entitled to maintenance and expenses, unless good cause to shown to deprive the applicant of it. The order exhausts itself with the conclusion of the main proceedings including the appeal filed if any. (Shashikiran - law of maintenance - page 49). 3. DwarkadasGurumukhdasAgrawal V/s. Bhanuben,I(1987) DMC 46 Gujarat - There is nothing in section 24 to prevent a Court from taking into consideration the conduct of the parties. But that is too spacious a contention since at least in the original proceedings if this point is conceded, it would require the Court to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and if such as exercise is permitted the Court's discretion would be fettered merely by the nature of the allegations made in the petition and would be compelled to examine the merits of the same at least prima facie. (Shashikiran - law of maintenance - page 49) 4. Even in Balbir Singh V/s. SwarnaKanta AIR 1981 Raj 266; 1980 Raj LW 654 - L It is within the discretion of the court to make an order for maintenance pendent elite, and merely because two of the conditions, namely, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no indepdendent income sufficient for her/his support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, and the other spouse has sufficient means, are satisfied, then it is not necessary for the Court to order payment of maintenance pendentelite and expenses of the proceedings. Therefore, though it is not specifically provided that the conduct of the applicant for maintenance pendent elite and expenses of the proceedings is to be taken into consideration, but the fact that the discretion of the Court to make an order or not to make an order goes to show that the Court has to taken the conduct and the other circumstances also into consideration while disposing of the application u/sec. 24 l ong back in 1986 it was held that though this section does not refer to the conduct of parties as in sect.25, the Court can take into account the conduct of parties. (Shashikiran - law of maintenance - page 61) 5. Vinod Kumar V/s. kaushalya, I (1996) DMc 603 Raj - It is true that if suit for divorce is decreed after trial on the ground of adultery then wife will not be entitled to get permanent alimony and maintenance u/sec 25 of HMa because adultery alleged against her is proved. But at the stage of the proceeding u/sec 24 if the HMA adultery is only alleged. There is large gap between "adultery alleged" at the stage of proceeding under section 24 of the aforesaid Act and adultery found to be proved by court trial at the stage of proceeding u/sec 25 of the said Act. (Shashikiran - law of maintenance - page 50) 6. Munnibai V/s. JagdishRathore, 1999 (2) CCC 6 (MP) - There may be cases where the character and gravity of the conduct is such which may be found repugnant to the concept and the institution of marriage and it may be wholly unjust to ignore them while considering the question of releasing or withholding the benefit contemplated u/sec 24 of the Act, but it all depends on the facts of each case and cogent reasons have to be recorded for withholding the grant of the benefit u/sec 24 of the Act. (Shashikiran - law of maintenance - page 54) 7. Sulochanabai v/s. Tikaram, I (1986) DMC 351 MP - The court normally consider it predent to adhere to the principle of a marriage de facto carries the right of alimony pendent elite; but this principle of matrimonial law has necessarily to be considered in the light of the attending circumstances, when the court exercise its discretion as to whether the wife should be granted or not alimony. The conduct of the parties can not be ignored by the court while passing the orders u/sec 24 of HMA. In a case where the wife has brought cohabitation to an end by such misconduct for which the husband is not be blamed, the Court may well refuse to grant alimony and expenses for litigation pendent lite. (wife was having extramarital affair with DhanrajHirkane. It was hled that the misconduct on the part of the wife, having thus been established, she has obviously no case for her claim for alimony and litigation expenses pendent elite. Friends, believe me this is not given to me by any Advocate, but has practically read lot of books and searched in internet. Men's legal torture: A Study [ 26/12/2005 ] It is a common perception( through the media hype about women’s torture and anti-patriarchal propaganda) that only men are the torturer and women are victims, which is also quite evident from the average physical strength of the duo. The legal torture of men is not an issue of physical strength or abusive behavior of one party, it is an issue of a legal system, which is designed to do injustice and hand-over powerful tools of torture in the hands of one-section of the society. The system is indeed eradicating evils from society but at the same time there is such a huge proportion of innocent individuals who are ground in the system, which is crumbling the not so bad patriarchy as it is portrayed through media. Such a nazist legal system created by feminist groups is making feminism synonymous to Nazism in India. The feminazis in India is well recognized by International media and other countries and is disgust to the national pride. US Travel Department has already issued warning to its citizens against marrying Indian women. The warning is as follows “A number of U.S.-citizen men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been arrested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction. Many of the charges stem from the U.S. citizen's inability to provide an immigrant visa for his prospective spouse to travel immediately to the United States. The courts sometimes order the U.S. citizen to pay large sums of money to his spouse in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American’s passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled.“ (https://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html) The WHO report says that daughter-in-laws routinely abuse elders using the stringent anti-dowry laws. D) Legal and financial abuse “Legal abuse was named as a particular type of abuse in both India and Lebanon, although each country has its own specific version of this. The Indian expression of legal abuse is through abuse of the dowry laws by daughters-in-law:” “In India, there is a law that is intended to protect daughters-in-law from abusive in-laws. A daughter-in-law can go to the police station and lay a complaint that she is being abused by her in-laws, and the in-laws are arrested on her word alone. However, the focus group participants reported that some daughters-in-law are using this law as a form of elder abuse, by making false police reports. In general, participants stressed that the lack of a caring attitude by daughters-in-law was a major problem. (India)”. (Document no. WHO/NMH/VIP/02.1, WHO/NMH/NPH/02.2 Title Missing Voices) UK Home office reports that there are substantial number of men who are subject to domestic violence at home.(https://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf) “The results from this survey reveal that inter-personal violence is widespread, affecting approximately one third of the population at some time in their lives. One in twenty women has experienced serious s*xual assault, while one in five women and one in ten men have been victims of domestic violence. The levels of s*xual assaults and other violence reported here will make for disturbing reading. No society can be complacent in the face of evidence of such widespread experience of violence, assault and harassment.” Moreover the Supreme Court has recognized that the Dowry Act and Domestic Violence Act is a legal terrorism, which many unscrupulous women use to threaten to mend the husband and his family, using the draconian provisions. (Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India Writ petition no. 141 of 2005). The torture to men comes from the draconian provisions and presumptions of Indian law against the natural principles of justice, in pursuit of quick questionable justice to woman, with the predisposition against husband and his family. The definitions of act constituting crime in matrimonial matters are extremely vague and the procedures are attempts to make justice before court’s verdict. For example, S498a where a woman has only caused minor hurt to “a man” is a bailable offence, but if man causes the same hurt to a woman who happens to be “a wife”, it is a non-bailable offence. Thus the legal position is that a man causing the hurt to a wife is liable to be imprisoned immediately, but a wife committing the same has to undergo trial and is free in society. Thus man is punished before the Court’s verdict. The definition of S498a makes mental and physical cruelty punishable. But being in husband’s family, the woman is anguished by myriad reasons. High amount of tension among family members against the wife, many times results in filing S498a, which immediately leads to arrest of all the family members. Most of such family members are well educated and have never experienced criminal prosecution. The Indian Law also allows for dismissal of a person, who is imprisoned for more than 24 hours. Such arrests invariably lead to loss of job among family members of husband. The husband is under excruciating pressure and embarrassment, because of the first time imprisonment in life and seeing his close relative jailed and lose jobs. It puts him in the lifetime shameful position in front of his family members. All this is done at the behest of a new bride. It is not at all necessary that the actual crime has ever been committed for all this to happen according to Indian Legal Procedures. Surprisingly all the criminal provisions in laws relating to women are non-bailable crimes. Crimes, which are of extremely serious nature, are only supposed to be made non-bailable and cognizable and non-compoundable. But every draft of women’s laws makes each crime non-bailable, so that man can be held under terror of being imprisoned. e.g. a man against whom restraining orders are obtained by wife for resisting her wife from working, is liable to be imprisoned only on the complaint of woman. The domestic violence law goes further one step, in allowing the conviction of the man only on wife’s testimony. A man who is caught with an unscrupulous wife, which is more often than not the case, is doomed for life. He constantly lives under terror in house as his liberty financial, social and physical is completely at the behest of a woman. There is another component of presumptions in Indian law. The example is dowry death. A man whose wife is dead under unnatural circumstances within first 7 years of marriage is presumed to have murdered her, if there is cruelty mentioned by the wife soon before the death. The law allows for unimaginable injustice. A man who might has lived happily and only because of some tiff the woman complains about her husband and then someday she is found dead. It is not uncommon to find such situation. There are always suicides and there will be more suicides. But how can a man be presumed to be a murderer and forced into murder trial. Even if the man is acquitted after being found innocent the scars of being forced into murder trial are heinous enough to not let him live in the society again and the precious years during his young life are already lost, which no feminist scraps can recompense for. Most of the 498a cases result in payment of high amount of alimony to woman and withdrawal of the cases. Because the woman is not interested in jailing her husband as there is hardly anything that can be achieved from it and husband is already enough frustrated by the imprisonment, dealing with police and long-drawn trial, in which his parents and younger siblings are also implicated. The husband wants to get out of the trouble by hook or crook. The example of the trauma can be witnessed in Crime against women cell, where men are regularly threatened and made to mend their ways. A day’s anonymous visit in such cell will easily show many men, elders and younger ones being abused by legal machinery at the behest of women. Maintenance is another such form of injustice. Maintenance is payable to woman, without prejudice to who is at fault in the matrimonial tiff. Indian law has created provision for livelihood of women at the expense of other person. The alimony is also supposed to be paid according to the status of the man. A woman is supposed to be part of the work force, and need not be pampered like a child for whole life. Instead the law has created provision for free lavish life for women, encouraging the women to live at the expense of man. The law means that the richer the man you marry the better will be the alimony. Instead the alimony should be granted considering the amount required for woman to stand on her own feet again, lead a secure life and cover any damages to her earning capacity also considering the behavior of the woman and the devotion of the woman to the family life and the same relief must be also available to man. There is absolutely no need for making a man part with his hard earned property. The form of alimony law allowed for women should only be allowed for children. Marriage is not license to be parasite on man for woman. The stringency of laws is so severe that it absolutely blocks any access to wife by husband, as he fears cases fabricated against him, which will immediately lead to his and his family’s arrest. The presumptions are also such that once the wife has left home, the husband fears that untimely death of the wife will land him in a murder trial and moreover union with the wife, will result in more legal torture. In such a legal system created by Indian government, divorce is usually the best solution for him, despite the short-term jail and severe financial loss as it is at least a short time torture, instead of continuous life-long one. The opportunities to grab property are increasingly luring women, to seek divorce, which is made even easier, by the extra-ordinarily stringent laws. Mischievous parents fall for the huge benefit with little disgrace now associated with divorce. A man under divorce proceeding is thrown out of his own house, made to part with his past earnings, made incapable of retaining any money he earns in future, has to see his parents and siblings fall in jail, driven away from his children and moreover ridiculed and berated by society and feminazis say “HE” is the torturer! What surprises me is that the Indian Constitution does not allow for criminal prosecution of one gender against another. The article 15(3) of constitution reads as 15(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women and children. Must be read with article (44) (44) The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform “civil” code throughout the territory of India. Article 44 maintains that discrimination is allowed in the drafted laws by the parliament, in “civil laws”, to give social, economical and political advantage on the criterion mentioned in sub-articles of article 15. All crimes including rape, s*xual assault, cruelty and domestic violence can be committed by women. The criminal tendencies of feminine gender will be quite clear, by looking at the no. of cases registered against females which is staggering 151675 in year 2003(Courtesy NCRB Table 12.4). There is no wonder that so many men are crying about legal torture in India. In UK and USA, a man is treated equal in front of law. A man can be a victim of s*xual assault or rape. He may also obtain restraining orders against his wife for domestic violence. Although the laws relating to maintenance are equally discriminating though and men have always been afraid of that. A strange phenomenon among British and American citizenry is worth learning a lesson from. The marriage rate is sharply declining among UK’s youngsters. ( https://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,1435403,00.html ) The reason is legal complications of marriage are unbearable for most of the men. With more and more intrusion of stringent laws into today’s happy homes, in favor of women against men, government is surely leading India into doom’s valley. This is a blunder politician’s are committing by not learning from the history of other nations. I have always known feminists as home-breakers and my grand parents have always hated these concepts and strongly contemned them. Yet my father and grandfather took good care of my mother, myself and my sister and all the boys and girls in my family are well educated. I don’t see any fault in the patriarchal system, unless you must find one using Domestic Violence Act! But we are a content and happy family. Please do not enter into our home. We don’t want government with feminist scraps in our house. Give us more rational laws, which will bring only the perpetrators to justice and will strengthen the existing family system and will respect the honor and dignity of men. DO NOT implicate innocent men in criminal laws in the name of social reforms. However if she has never worked - then the only way to avoid the payment of mainteannce is by proving that she left your company without reasonable cause and is guilty of desertion.

How to fight a Maintenance case (Section 24 HMA) filed by your wife. In Uncategorized on July 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm This is an article on how to successfully defend a maintenance case filed by your wife. These are the judgments, that we have successfully used over the years, alongwith the relevant excerpts, to negative a woman’s claim for maintenance in courts across India. It is always important to do a little homework. 1. Keep a track on your wife’s finances. 2. Her PAN Card No. may be vital to get her income tax returns. When the maintenance proceedings are on – then in that case you can always emphasise strongly on the fact that these provisions were meant to protect genuinely harassed and incapable women from starvation and destitution, and not a vehicle of oppression allowing women to live as parasites. ‘Incapacity to earn is the most vital consideration’ Hence if a wife is otherwise able bodied and educated and fails to work solely because of sheer lethargy and desire to break down husband financially in that situation she is not entitled to any maintenance. THESE JUDGMENTS MAY BE IMMENSELY HELPFUL FOR THOSE FACING MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS ! 1. Madhya Pradesh High Court – Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 – Equivalent citations: 2000 (4) MPHT 457 “6. In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M. Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, can not be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice-versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That can not he treated to he aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient efforts arc unable to support and maintain themselves and arc required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours” 2. ) Kumaresan Vs. Aswathi reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 760 wherein it has been held as under :- “8…….A plain reading of the above provision would show that the only condition required for grant of maintenance pendente lite is the party should not have sufficient independent income for her/his support. If it is found that the applicant has sufficient income for his/her support, no amount can be allowed as maintenance pendente lite as per section 24 of the Act. But of course, if it is found that the applicant has no sufficient independent income for his/her support, such application can be considered and suitable maintenance amount can be awarded pendente lite.” 3. Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs. M. Devaki reported in AIR 2003 Mad 212, wherein it has been held as under :- “5…..The above averment shows that the petitioner herein/husband is working in Senthil Auto Garage, Annai Sathya Nagar, Chennai-102 and drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- per month. Likewise, it is also seen that the respondent herein/wife is working in Raj T.V and drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/-. Though the said aspect has not been substantiated, I have already referred to the admission of the respondent herein in her counter statement filed in the main O.P.1310/2000 wherein she admitted that she secured a private job and is getting salary and staying with her brother. On the other hand, it is established particularly from Ex. R-1, the petitioner herein is getting only Rs.70/- per day or Rs.2000/- per month by working in Senthil Auto Garage. I have already referred to the language used in Section 24 which makes it clear that for grant of maintenance pendente lite the party should not have sufficient independent income for her support. In the light of the materials available, particularly the admitted case of the respondent/wife, she is employed in a private Satelite T.V. and earning for her livelihood staying with her brother, it cannot be construed that she is not having sufficient independent income. The Family Court lost its sight to consider the above material aspect.” If these judgments coupled with strong oral arguments, can really help rule out any adverse maintenance orders. *The Author is a Supreme Court Advocate & a Mens Rights Activist – based in Delhi, can be reached at bharat.law06@gmail.com – 9810553252

Great information!

Dear Bharat Ji

Thanx

Can she demand half salary or what minimum/maximum is payable as per law If i am unble to prove any source of income on her part particularly when she is taking care of 3 year baby.

Please give some insight

 

Thanx again

IF SOMEONE CAN HELP FOR ABOVE SITED

Dear Vishak , 

Mr Bharat chugh has guided you rightly so take heed of his advice . 

1. Can she demand half salary or what minimum/maximum is payable as per law If i am unble to prove any source of income on her .

Take for instance she has demanded your full salary .Do you feel that the court would give her your full salary than what would you sustain yourself on . They would take into consideration your liabities if your counsel projects it ( any EMI's ( loans) , any dieseases you are suffering from and their  Medical expenses etc and your expenses .

Normally the court considers 1/3 rd of your salary but there is no hard and fast rule . Everything would depend upon what you and your counsel have put forth in  your arguments .  

 

Thanx Mr stanley

than u very much

My wife filed a petition in May,2013 for maintenance. I tried my best to settle the dispute with my wife in an amicable manner as it was not  a serious matter and for that court also gave an opportunity. But my wife court not agree for this and is insisting for maintenance.

Please guide in case court allows her for maintenance then will I have to pay the maintenance since the date she filed the petition or from the date the court asks me to pay the same.

Further, my salary is 25000 (Cash in Hand). I am a debtor of around Rs.6 lacs that I borrowed for home construction purpose. Under this situation, how much maintenance the court may allow to her. I am blessed with a son and my wife is simply a housewife and is not doing any job.

 

Please guide and oblige.

Regards/MALKIAT SINGH