No Maintenance to able bodied educated women

'Able bodied principle ' was used by the Gujrat High Court and I have used that citation in one of my cases from the DM Journal. [Divorce and Maintainacne Judgemtns]. If that judgment can be found it can be used and quoted in these days of gender justice/equality, especially if the wife is more educated/employed .

    Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26/9/2003

ORDER

   Arun Kumar Mitra, J.

   1. This revisional application has been made challenging the Order No. 21
dated 4-2-2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in
Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 arising out of MAT Suit No. 54/2000. The husband/O.P.
filed a Matrimonial Suit being MAT Suit No. 54/ 2000 praying for divorce. The
petitioner got married with the respondent and the marriage was solemnised
according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 9-4-1998. The petitioner alleged that
she was sent to have parental home by the husband-respondent on 26-7-2000 and
the petitioner had to depend on her father. The petitioner did not pay the
single farthing to the petitioner even if when she became ill, her medical
expenses were not also borne by the husband. According to the petitioner, she
was tortured when she was in the matrimonial home and ultimately when the
petitioner was forced to go to her parental house the respondent did not pay or
did not look after the petitioner and as such the petitioner had to pass her
days with great financial hardship. In such a circumstance the petitioner filed
an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming alimony
pendente lite and the said petition filed in the said Matrimonial Suit was
numbered as Misc. Case No. 5/ 2001. The petitioner also stated that she has also
filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate. Barasat which is still pending. According to the petitioner, the
husband-respondent is a diploma-holder in Mechanical Engineering (L.M.E.) and he
is an employee of Garrison Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and he earns Rs.
10,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed alimony pendente lite to the tune of
Rs. 3000/- per month. The husband-respondent has also filed an application for
maintenance against the wife claiming that the wife is a graduate and out of
private tuition she earns Rs. 5000/- per month and the husband has claimed
maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month from the wife. The husband-respondent filed
objection before the trial Court to the application for maintenance filed by the
petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said objection the
husband-respondent submitted that he was the store-in-charge of Garrison
Engineering Company. The petitioner-wife filed a criminal case before Maniktala
Police Station and the respondent-husband was arrested in connection with the
said criminal case and when he came out on bail his service was terminated and
since then he is unemployed and moving like a vagabond. The respondent-husband
also filed an application for maintenance claiming alimony to the tune of Rs.
2000/- per month and alleging that since the wife-petitioner is earning Rs.
5000/- per month out of private coaching, he is entitled to get maintenance.
After hearing the wife-petitioner and the husband-O.P. before the trial Court,
the learned Trial Judge rejected both the petitions -- one filed by the
petitioner-wife and the other filed by the husband-respondent.

   2. Challenging the aforesaid rejection order the wife has come to this Court.

   3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial
Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction properly and without any application of
mind or without considering the provision of statute or without considering the
evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge passed the Impugned order. The
learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Judge should have considered that
in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden
of proof of income of the husband was lying with the husband since the fact of
his income and the quantum of his income cannot be within the knowledge in
specific of the wife-petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the basis of the impugned order is surmise and not evidence on
record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife as
disclosed certain income of the husband and thereafter the husband-respondent
should have disclosed in evidence regarding his actual income. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Trial Judge went on
wrong in deciding that since the petitioner is an Arts Graduate she cannot sit
idle and arrived at a wrong presumption that she must have some earning. The
learned Counsel also submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider
that the husband-respondent is also a Diploma Engineer and if the Arts Graduate
can have some earning the Diploma Engineer cannot be also a vagabond. The
learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment , Chitra Sengupta v. Dhrubajyoti
Sengupta. In this judgment the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court
observed "but that apart, monthly income of a husband may not very often be
within the knowledge of the wife, particularly in a case like this where the
relation is considerably strained and the spouses are living a part for a
considerably long period". The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that onus
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be on the husband to disclose the
same and if he fails to do so without any good reasons, the Court would be
entitled to presume against him and to accept the allegations of the wife as to
the amount of income derived from such reasonable sources as would be available
to her. The Hon'ble Division Bench in this case quoting from a decision reported
in AIR 1917 Privy Council (sic) observed "a practice has grown up in Indian
Procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by,
trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing accordingly
to furnish to the Courts the best material for this decision. With regard to
third parties, this may be right enough; they have no responsibility for the
conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in Their
Lordships opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely
upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in
their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."

   4. The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that these observations were
endorsed by the Privy Council again in Rameswar Sing v. Bajit Lal Pathak AIR
1929 Privy Council 95 at page 99 and having been quoted with the approval by the
Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Badkulal, Their Lordships observed "we are of
opinion that as a matter of onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and also
otherwise under the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Privy
Council and the Supreme Court, it was for the husband to disclose his income and
he not having done that and not having also specifically denied the amount
alleged by the wife to be his income, we would have to go by such allegation for
the purpose of this application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then
relied' in another decision of Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 1986 (90) CWN
816, Somen Ghosh v. Bani Ghosh (nee Sen). The learned Counsel relied on
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this judgment which is quoted hereinbelow :--

     "4. The Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been
given a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente lite but the
discretion is judicial and not arbitrary or capricious. It is to be guided on
sound principles of matrimonial laws and to be exercised within the ambit of the
provisions of the section and having regard to the object of the Act' (vide
Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Page 873). In fixing the sum of maintenance and
legal expenses to be paid to the petitioner, who makes an application under
Section 24 of the Act, the Court shall have regard to the petitioner's own
income and income of the respondent. But we are unable to accept the contention
of Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner, that as there was no evidence that
his client was receiving any income or salary, no order under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act ought to have been made in favour of the wife, the opposite
party to the Revisional Application. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection had drawn
our attention to the discussion under the heading "Has No Independent Income
Sufficient" in Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Pages 872-73. The said passage does
not really support the contentions of Mr. Mukherjee. Because it has been
observed therein : "It is also implicit in the section that the order would not
be made if the respondent to the application is shown to have no property nor
earning capacity or is shown to have very small income. But the fact that the
respondent is not receiving any income from property for the time being would
not be sufficient answers to the claim.....................". Reference may also
be made to the discussion on the point at Page 885 of the aforesaid book on the
subject of assessment of quantum of maintenance payable under Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The learned author has inter alia observed : "It would also
be open to take into account the earning capacity of the husband as well as the
wife. The Court has ample discretion and in a deserving case may ascertained
not. only what money's the husband had but what money he could have had if he
liked and take into consideration his capacity and ability to provide
maintenance. The Court will look at the realities and not permit itself to be
misled by appear ances". Rayden on Divorce, Vol. I, 13th Edn. in Notes at Pages
872-873 with reference to the provisions of Matrimonial Clauses Act, 1973 makes
similar observations.

     5.5 In the Instant case, the husband was undisputedly at one time employed
in a company named Kohinoor Rubber Works. In her evidence given in the Court
below the wife had no doubt stated that she did not know where her husband
worked now. In her cross-examination, she had denied the suggestion that her
husband was out of employment. Although in his evidence the husband, Samar
Ghosh, had claimed that he was not employed at present and had to tender
resignation as his wife and others held out threats. But he had admitted that he
had no paper to show that he had left his work. He also admitted that he had no
wit ness for living his job or to show what was his salary. He had also admitted
that he got a job at Raniganj but he had left it due to threats by the other
party. Again, he had no paper or witness to show that he had lost this job also.
In all likelihood, there would be papers in case he had resigned his job. But he
did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence to corroborate his claim that
he was out of employment. The husband was an ablebodied youngman of about 34
years of age, Although there was no evidence before the Court below of the
actual income, if any earned by him, the Court below legitimately could take
into consideration his ability to earn a reasonable amount of income."

   5. The learned counsel then relied on the decision (Sm. Urmila Devi v. Hari
Parkash Bansal). In this judgment it has been observed ; "Thus, if a person is
an ablebodied person can be all working, then he suppose to maintain his wife
and to pay the maintenance as required under Section 24. It is for the purpose
of fixing the amount under Section 24 that the applicant shown income and that
of the respondent is to be taken into consideration. In the absence of any
income as such of either party is the husband being an ablebodied person and can
be all working can be considered as capable of maintaining his wife and thus,
liable to pay the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act." The learned
Counsel then relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 NOC 61 (Rajasthan)
(Anil Kr. v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi). In this judgment it has been observed that the
husband has disclosed his income before the Court below which appears to be
unbelievable. It is duty of the ablebodied person to earn enough to discharge
his legal obligation to maintain his wife and to provide for the subsistence so
that the wife is not driven to destitution even when the husband is not earning
sufficient money. The provisions have been made to protect the neglected wife
against starvation and to tide over the immediate difficulties and to protect
her interest during the proceedings which have been foisted upon her by the
husband. The proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are to be
decided in a summary manner and the Court is not expected to try the issue at
length then the learned counsel relied on the decision, (Smt. Kanchan v.
Kamalendu). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Bench of Bombay High Court
observed : "taking into consideration the scheme of Section 24 of the Act either
of the spouse in the proceedings on satisfying that they have no independent
source of income to support them and claim maintenance pendente lite. Husband
is, therefore, equally entitled to claim maintenance. Howsoever, the non-
applicant husband will have to satisfy the Court either due to physical or
mental disability, he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood." Then
again the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision, (Myra
Joseph Braz

   Dias v. Joseph Braz Dias). In this decision also the Hon'ble single Judge of
Bombay High Court followed the same principle. The learned counsel then relied
on the decision

   (Vinod Kr. Kejriwal v. Usha Vinod Kejriwal). In this judgment one learned
single Judge of Bombay High Court observed that the expression proceedings under
Act as provided in Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be given narrow and
restricted meaning. The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter relied on a
decision, (Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben). In this judgment the Hon'ble
single Judge of Gujarat High Court when interpreting the provisions of Section
106 of the Evidence Act observed in the context of that case : "The fact
regarding the income of the defendant and the income of the property in
possession and management of the father of the defendant was within their
special knowledge. They are not third parties. The defendant is the husband and
his father is also under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law from
the income of the property which are in his management and possession. Both have
committed default. They are withholding the evidence in their possession and are
not answering the averments of the plaintiff as provided under Order 8, Rule 5
of the Code. Under the circumstances, the guess work made by the plaintiff-wife
and specific averment made by her in para 5 of the plaint that the income of the
defendant-husband is 1710 dollars per month and income from the properties in
India is Rs. 20,000/- per year is acceptable as evidence. Some assessment of the
plaintiff regarding the income of the defendant-husband and the income of the
property in possession of his father based upon information of her relatives,
which is not controverted specifically by the defendant in his written
statement, and in view of the circumstances that neither the defendant nor his
father, who is in the management of the said properties in India having stepped
into the Witness Box nor they have produced material documents in their
possession, requires to be accepted as proof in this case. I, therefore, held
that the income of the defendant-husband was 1700 dollars in the year 1969 and
in the income from the property in possession and management of the father of
the defendant in India was Rs. 20,000/- per year". The learned counsel then
lastly relied on a decision, reported in AIR 2001 Jharkhand 61 : (2001 AIR --
Jhar HCR 348) (Smt. Chandrani Sinha v. Koushik Sinha). In this judgment also the
Hon'ble High Court at Jharkhand allowed maintenance for the wife. The learned
counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision submits that the impugned
order passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside.

   6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 24 provides
that any of the spouse can claim for maintenance. The learned counsel also
submits that the wife could not prove the income of the husband in definite
conclusion and as such the learned trial Judge rightly rejected the petition for
maintenance submitted by the wife. The learned counsel also submits that the
husband-respondent has no income inasmuch as the service has been terminated and
accordingly as per the provisions of Section 24 he can also claim maintenance
from the wife petitioner since the wife-petitioner through private coaching
earns Rs. 5000/- and as such the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs.
2000/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that unless the
petitioner proves the income of her husband-respondent, on the air maintenance
cannot be granted because the quantum is to be calculated.

   7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considered their rival
contentions and also considered the impugned order passed by the learned Trial
Judge at the outset let me have a look into the provision of Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are runs as follows :--

     24. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that
either the wife or the husband, as the case may be has no independent income
sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses or the proceeding,
it may, on the application of the wife or husband, order the respondent to pay
to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the
proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the
income of the respondent it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.

   8. This provision of this statute is very amazing. The other Acts like Indian
Divorce Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not say about
maintenance pendente lite of the wife or the husband.

   9. Mulla in this context has observed that the right of a wife for
maintenance is an incident of the status or estate of matrimonial. In general,
therefore, the husband is bound to defray his wife's costs of any proceeding
under this Act and to provide for all alimony, which expression in its strict
sense means allowance due to wife from husband on separation from certain
causes, has its basis in social conditions in English under which married woman
was economically dependent and almost in a position of tutelage to the husband
and was intended to secure justice to her when prosecuting or defending
proceeding under matrimonial law, it is also recognized that when the wife has
separate means sufficient for her defence in subsistence she should not be
entitled to alimony nor costs during the proceeding and if the husband has
neither property nor earning capacity the Court would not award any interim
alimony. It is on these principles that the law relating to matrimonial causes
provides for rules for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings by the husband to the wife this section adopts those principles and
those one radical step further when it lays down that any such order can be made
not only in favour of the wife but also in favour of the husband.

   10. Let us now take the chronology of events in the instant case. In the year
1998 marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites. In the year 2000 the
petitioner-wife left the matrimonial house and took shelter at her parental
home. In the same year the husband-respondent filed a suit for divorce. The
wife-petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure claiming maintenance and subsequently in the suit filed an application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for maintenance pendente lite
with litigation cost. After the wife-petitioner filed the application for
maintenance the husband-respondent also filed an application claiming
maintenance from the wife. Now the learned trial Judge heard both the
applications analogously and rejected both the applications. The learned trial
Judge came to the conclusion that the husband is no longer in service and he has
no income at present at all. The learned trial Judge also observed that it is
the settled principle of law that an educated lady cannot be encouraged to sit
idle expecting any allowance from her husband. In the instant case the
petitioner-wife is a graduate whereas the O.P.-husband has been living a life of
vagabond and is vagabond and is totally dependent upon the brothers. I find no
reasons for saddling the O.P.-husband with any amount of alimony pendente lite
as passing of such order will only re-elected the capricious attitude of the
Court upon the husband who has no income at all at present. Likewise appointment
at all inclined to saddle the petitioner-wife with any amount of maintenance for
maintaining her by thoroughly unemployed husband as claimed in the petition
filed by the O.P.-husband as he is able-bodied . The learned Trial Judge, it is
not known, wherefrom got this settled principle of law that an educated lady
cannot be encouraged to sit idle. It is not known in which law it has been
provided. The learned trial Judge in fact advised the petitioner-wife not to sit
idle but to do some work then what for the provision of maintenance pendente
lite. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge without any conclusive
evidence came to the finding that the husband-O.P. is unemployed. It cannot be
said to be believable that in a private firm named Garrison Engineering Company
which is a reputed organisation has appointed the O.P.-husband as store-in-
charge without appointment letter and has also terminated his job without any
letter of termination, far less without any disciplinary proceeding or without
any enquiry. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge accepted that
the service of the O.P.-husband in these hard days was terminated and he did not
proceed with any legal proceeding challenging the order of dismissal from
service. It is also surprising that for a person remaining in custody for more
than 48 hours he is to face suspension if he is a Government employee but here
the husband-respondent has said that as he was taken to custody, his service was
terminated which also cannot be said to be believable. If the learned trial
Judge relies on the Bombay High Court decision and observes that the husband-
respondent is an able-bodied person and naturally he is not entitled to
maintenance, then the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted the ratio of
the Judgment in full and should have considered that in that Bombay High Court
judgment the Hon'ble Court on that score directed the husband to grant
maintenance to the wife. Here the learned trial Judge proceeded to some extent
in consideration of the judgment but did not consider the judgment of Bombay
High Court in totality.

   11. In my opinion, the husband-respondent foisted the divorce suit on the
wife and the husband-respondent can very well file a divorce suit to incur
expenditure over there for the purpose of divorce and when the question of
maintenance arises, the husband says that he is unemployed/vagabond. It is also
peculiar that the husband filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance but when his petition was rejected by
virtue of this impugned order then he did not challenge the order and did not
move any revisional application and only played the role of respondent before
this High Court. Since Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act unlike other Acts
provides for maintenance of both the husband and the wife, the Court should
carefully proceed in the matter for granting maintenance. The trial Court should
have considered in this case that the petitioner-husband filed divorce suit
incurring cost. The petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and when his
service was terminated, he did not challenge the said termination order. The
learned Trial Judge was wrong in the calculation that if an Arts Graduate lady
can do something and should not sit idle then the learned Trial Judge also
should have considered that the petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and he
also should not sit idle being able-bodied. In this patriarchal society like
ours that weaker s*x is to face various troubles to find out a suitable job for
maintaining herself. In such cases when considering the claim for maintenance,
the Court should assess the conduct of the parties. Now here what is the
conduct. In 1998 March, the wife had to find out shelter in her parental home.
In the same year the husband filed a suit for divorce, there is no evidence on
record that the husband tried for conciliation and incurring expenditure he can
file a suit for divorce. He can regularly pay the Lawyers' fees and other
expenditures and when the wife files an application for maintenance to encounter
that petition takes advantage of the language of Section 24 and files a petition
for maintenance. The income of the husband must be within his special knowledge
and he did not make any attempt to prove either his actual income or his
dismissal from service though Section 106 of the Evidence Act is very clear in
this regard. The husband was to disclose his Income as it was within his special
knowledge as provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, The husband engaged
Lawyer before this High Court to defend his case but he did not challenge the
order of rejection though his claim for maintenance has been rejected by the
same order passed by the learned trial Judge. From this incident the conduct of
the husband comes to light. Had the husband-petitioner been prejudicially
affected he must have challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge, but, he
did not.

   12. On consideration of the facts and circumstances and consideration of the
evidence on record, I therefore, set aside the order impugned passed by the
learned Trial Judge in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 in MAT Suit No. 54 of 2000. The
learned Trial Judge is directed to hear the Section 24 Application afresh filed
by both the wife and the husband in the light of discussions and observation
made above. Till the learned trial Judge arrives at a decision I direct that the
respondent/husband to pay @ Rs. 1800/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred only)
per month as maintenance to the petitioner/ wife and will go on paying the same
month by month by sending the same to the petitioner/wife through Money Order.
The first such payment is to be sent by the respondent/husband within a
fortnight from date and he will send the amount thereafter within seventh of
each English Calendar. The respondent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-
(Rupees Five thousand) only in two equal instalments within three months from
date to the petitioner/wife towards litigation costs and the respondent/husband
will send this litigation costs directly to the petitioner/wife through Money
Order. The Revislonal Application is thus disposed of.

   13. There will be no further order as to costs.

   14. Urgent xerox certified copies of this Judgment and order, if applied for,
will be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

   Later

   15. Learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for a xerox plain copy of the
operative portion of this order. Let a xerox plain copy of the operative portion
of this order duly countersigned by the Asstt. Registrar (Court) be handed over
to the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

 
  

A person is required to pay continuously, every month for the crime of marriage he has committed. The only way out is to refuse to marry.

What may be the percentage of population getting divorced ? Any idea ?

So now I wonder which idiot came up with the adage, "Marriges are made in Heaven"!?

sifybird: Your question, “What may be the percentage of population getting divorced ? Any idea ?”

Well, taking an educated guess, I’d say a little more than 100%! You see, marriage is (or should be) a lot more than a piece of paper that gives the government’s OK to exercise conjugal privileges because along with this piece of paper come other pieces of paper laying down conditions that carry the potential of criminalizing your relationship: “The Fine Print”!! In other words, GENDER BIASED “LAWS”! So, despite the mushy BS indigenous to marriage ceremonies, e.g., “union of two souls”, “journey together”, “love and bonding”, and the piece de resistance, “’till death do us part” …. our minds and being are really divorced from each other even though we’re still living in a marital relationship picking up bits and pieces of “happiness” tossed at us during moments of generosity! And life goes on because we don’t know any better.  I am not stating that government intrusion is always there in our private family life or in our bedrooms; IT IS VERY MUCH THERE LURKING IN THE SHADOWS patiently waiting for an “aggrieved” spouse to beckon its menacing presence.

Well, I have a new adage-

Marriage is a decree against which there is no appeal.

Well said.

Another one:

Marriage is a chequebook in the hand of wife and cheques of this book are never dishonoured.

Rajesh-Ji: "Marriage is a chequebook in the hand of wife and cheques of this book are never dishonoured"? YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THAT! The cheques they write are of rubber; THEY BOUNCE!

Sir, Please give me citation if u can. Thanks

I see that this is an interesting discussion and I do not mind jumping into it even in this late stage.

The question of maintenance is related to the status of woman in our Indian society. There is a dichotomy between two essential aspects of our lives. One of the breadwinner's role and the other of the housewife, who keeps the household running and looks after the children. There is no bridge between these two roles.

Indian women are very often married off at a young age without adequate education or skills for earning a livelihood.

Most Indian men view the traditional activities of a woman - cooking, cleaning, caring for the children - as being inferior and beneath their dignity.

If men and women are to have an equal place in society, these activities have to shared. If a woman can go out and work as a lawyer or accountant or doctor and bring home solid bucks, why should the husband not take part in household jobs like cooking or feeding the children or cleaning the house.

We have to redefine the traditional gender roles in our country.

Agreed and that is how most of the metro couples live today..........However how many earning women shares their earning in the house hold expenses/family investments/home-loans/car loans/jwellery purchase/children's marraige/vacations-holidays/outings.........in gujarati there is a saying which goese like this "MARU MARA BAPANU ANE TARO MARO BHAG" THAT IS "MY THINGS ARE MINE ONLY (MY FATHER'S) WHEREAS YOUR THINGS HAVE TO BE SHARED"........this is the reality.

Sir,

Here is the supperb judgment for husband but generally in India it is heard or practice that District Court Judgment cannot cite in the matter because of same forum and rather to say only high court and supreme court judgment can be cite. It is true? If yes than please send me the judgment on this issue and in favour of husband please.

Thanks

Can u post some Supreme Court judgements on the same