No maintenance to EARNING wife -SC

No Tajobindia sir, I would not have done that. But I would not have also reduced a woman as in this case to surviving on her 6000( after deducting 3000 for her residence) when her husband is in good position with perks and other benefits and getting a salary of 40,000. If it is settled on case to case basis and that is what my posts have indicated ( some of them), this judgement would have been posted with a qualifier that these cases are settled on case to case basis) . Reading some of your posts,I would guess had you posted this judgement, you would have given a perspective and reasoning for it also.

 

All are requested not to comment on any individual.

The main issue here on this forum is to find the easy solution for first of all to save the family from breaking and do compromise by both the spouses.

Second issue is equality in treatment by spouses to each other.

Third issue is equality in treatment by the law and judicial system.

So lets focus on these issues instead of commenting on each others.

 

Thanks

 

Well then, giving out what is legally correct is spreading negativity........mmmm........... 

Originally posted by :Ambika
"	No Tajobindia sir, I would not have done that. But I would not have also reduced a woman as in this case to surviving on her 6000( after deducting 3000 for her residence) when her husband is in good position with perks and other benefits and getting a salary of 40,000. If it is settled on case to case basis and that is what my posts have indicated ( some of them), this judgement would have been posted with a qualifier that these cases are settled on case to case basis) . Reading some of your posts,I would guess had you posted this judgement, you would have given a perspective and reasoning for it also.	"

@ Ambika,

See it is democracy each as per his/her own capacity can write as he / she feels. However, oh readers try not to "benchmark in tombstone" the (Re.: TOTAL 40 K of this husband) with rainbow glasses.
Reasoning: It is settled principle in maint. cases that if a husband’s proved income is 40 K then half of it is for him (now don't ask what for and all that) and from the balance half which in Re. case comes to 20 K straight 1/3rd. goes to wife and for that no Judge needs to apply more of his application of mind that is already told to them in Judicial Academy training. Now if it is pittance and or largesse and or suicidal for wife as feminists alleges then it is feminists outlook and "equity" does not mean one way ticket and husbands shall sell one kidney to compensate the other 20 K can he and if yes you say then 'wife' shall never remain ‘incapacitated’ when litigation pilled before her is also amalgamation in ‘equity’ principals of Law!
However, let us leave all these and try to reason out case by case postings as both wife's side and husbands side authors will always have their version popping out as always and there is nothing wrong and or right in either versions just because society is still reeling under medieval mindset and ‘wife’ will always remain ‘a bala’ no matter she wants it or not that is the great gift of ‘feminists’ around the globe and India is also no exception to the Rule.
All the best to various readers........
PS.: I am mixing my (mild) observations to your another post, where you pounced one replier that it is always a husband who does atrocities. Well to a prudent thinker it is not the ‘absolute’ truth but results of ‘circumstances’ in pecuniary facts of only that case and generalizing it with others is not we call ‘principals of natural justice’

Thank you Tajobsindia sir. I found some of the portions very educative and I hope you would not mind clarifying a few more things.

In this particualr case wife gets 5000 for the child only. Does she get anything to herself? If the daughter had been 18 years, what would have been the position? If the daugher had been well settled what would have been the position, because the judgment says since the wife is earning....This 1/3 is I beleive for children and wife taken together? your reply would educate me on this aspect. And I sincerely appreciate your time which you are giving in writing such clear replies to particular queries for both women and men alike, ofcourse with your sense of humour which I appreciate when I read your replies!

I want to understand only that clause. It may be husband in place of wife, and wife needs to give him maintenance if he is not earning well in relation to his wife or he is just surviving on 6000 when wife is earnining well and have the benefits of the perks.

Likewise is there any formulae for fixing alimony?

By the way,  did I comment out of context? Atrocitities I agree are atrocities whether men suffer or women suffer. I guess my comment would have been in some particular context, and if it is not, I would like ot clarify the stand that women have their own set of vulnerabilities due to our existing social set up from her birth on, one cannot tell all men are atrocious, I am a daughter of a loving father and sister of my loving brothers and they are men! And i see happy couples around and I see supporting and helping men and young boys too! So cirtainly one including me need not generalise.

Just one more you can combine with my earlier one: is the proved income pre or post tax? How does deduction count in? Perks and reimbursements? Though I know some threads have answers for it, but they are all scattered and here I would have answers with this reasoning which can make me and others understand it in better way.

@ Ambika,

I know what you are trying to do…..other way you want words in my mouth : -)
That is what I call height of ‘persuasion’ ......


However, on academic points here I rattle and get once again elevated to most hated mens right activist hall of fame aab to I pod kahi nahi gaya - sun rahi hon Avnish JJJJJ

1. In this particular case wife gets 5000 for the child only.
Reasoning: Yes, that is right. The Court took the view of the title of the post which was rightly put by Avnish.


2. Does she get anything to herself?
Reasoning: No, read above reason.


3. If the daughter had been 18 years, what would have been the position?
Reasoning: Difficult to predict. However, U/g of custodial parent she can easily file using S. 28 HMA “change of circumstances” Application for present needs (whatever merits they have at that time is what I mean).


4. If the daughter had been well settled what would have been the position, because the judgment says since the wife is earning....
Reasoning: There is no need to pay maint. to admitted facts. Com’n aab itna maat maro eik baap kon be it so that he is presently earning 40 K and forcasting on price index he will end up raising the earning to 68 K by that time such frivolous situation arise!


5. This 1/3 is I believe for children and wife taken together?
Reasoning: No. wife got thumbs down, read title of post. Only the child (since she happen to be female child) got soft hearing from Lordships.


6. Husband seeking Maint. under HMA etc…..
Reasoning: Very few cases (less than one handful) I have read down where husband got the way you want in this Re. case Justice. However, I am open for further education if you can send parties name in such pecuniary circumstances.  See you are reassuringly being a women has soft corner on this ‘wife’ and 6 K she got but no one can ignore admitted pleadings be it either spouse and in this case both admitted lots of material facts which is quite ‘reasonable’ contest I must add.


7. Likewise is there any formulae for fixing alimony?
Reasoning: Alimony is purely based on ‘conduct’ of spouse seeking so (pre and during trial) and if you see history of HMA litigations than few interesting cases exists and rest end up during such long journey into ‘compromise’ now you may add bechari wife ney hi ki hogi compromise so that is your phantom of mind not mine J


8. Last particular para of your post 02 February 2011, 14:15
Reasoning: I understand you, when words run out in combat debate one tries to go into loop of ‘justification’ before that same person is a sherani sans jungle raj……


9. Is the proved income pre or post tax? How does deduction count in? Perks and reimbursements?
Reasoning: As per my bare reading down, proved income is the one which is as Sworn Statement mentioned as material facts by husband and or what oozes as inference at Bar (means arguments and notings’ therein by ld Judge(s) and for aftermath effect as Newton’s Third Law of Motion  in cases of civil maintenance a husband should acquire gyan to drill in complete paras of S. 60 CPC tab uski nayyia paar hogi nahi toh read one of my posts where I defined what is interpretation as per Indian Law. I am open to criticism on this reasoning which I welcome com’n..

10. Last three lines of your post 02 February 2011, 14:18
Reasoning: I don’t believe in spoon feeding, help yourself with free flowing gyan in American gifted family breaking laws of India.

Aur kutch…..

 

Thank you Tajobsindia Sir for sparing time for replying point by point.

No everything does have to be a debate all the time.

I do not understand this man hater list and all as well as IPod thing may be because I have joined just recently ! Have not yert gone though all the threasds which would take so much of time to get a hang of the things going on in the LCI.

Dear all,

 

Finally the law concluding that the men should marry a women who has sufficient capacity to maintain herself else husband has to maintain......

Even the law is forcing the men to marry only earning wife so that if she is bad, then husband is not loosing money so that he can fight the cases (bad wife..... may file 498A, DV, CrPC-125 etc) ?

 

Grear law....?

 

In villages all the labour family members work and earn and eat.... hence there are very few litigations between the labours.

 

If wife are allowed to depend on earning os men.... and suddenly if man dies then who will give money to that women? The Govt...., the Court...? The God...?

 

Why people do not make person to work and eat.

i too dont agree as now a days women take advantage of laws to suit their selfish needs by even compromising the family culture. please look it in a neutral angle .. i am also one such victim..

Originally posted by : R.KANNAN
	i too dont agree as now a days women take advantage of laws to suit their selfish needs by even compromising the family culture. please look it in a neutral angle .. i am also one such victim..

Coz we live in that gr8 a country where state itself sponsers the extortion

thank you sir

The Case is not properly described in relation to the Topic / Heading of the article.

The Case is not properly described in relation to the Topic / Heading of the article.