Sec 125 c.r.p.c

sir you can show her working details in court it will help in reduction in quantum for maintenance.but she is having a right to get maintenance even she is working.if you want to avoid complete maintenance you have to proof you does not have sufficient means to maintain.

for working women No M.C citations. type in Google u get many.

thnks Nidhi mam n Rao sir

she s claiming there I'm earning in shop which already has been close for last 4 yes..n also she said in lower court that she has locked tht particular shop.n also except in court that I'm not working,or what he (I'm) working I don't know.she s more educated then m.

The presiding officer decides based upon facts and evidences made known to court.

Either spouse can approach / write to establishment to provide payouts (wages etc) details…and establishment may deny or even agree..

Either spouse can ask for details thru RTI, Court..

There are decisions in favor, against for maintenance to working/qualified spouse..

The spouse can also appraise the court about income and liabilities..

You seem to have a counsel and probably have not appeared as PIP and your counsel seem to have relieved you from wedlock. Appraise your counsel if you are having income or not. Hope you have the irrefutable record. Hope you also have the irrefutable record of your liabilities. The spouse may claim as per past living standard and needs at current location. The spouse may claim later the circumstances have changed and expect increased amounts. The husband/father may have to pay maintenance to spouse/children and reasonable expenses to marry the daughter within his reach and resources. The seasoned PIP , helpgroups at your location can also guide and help you. 

 

 

Approach a very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in Family/Civil matters and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ … and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt…..with whom you may share inputs /show the documents/evidence for a considered opinion.. 

At each location three are some counsels that specialize in such matters and they are well known.

Check for such counsels at LOCAL Family/civil courts, HC, SC……

Your counsel can help to get you relief/reasonable order.

 

On issue of maintenance to spouse there are many judgments that are in favor and against. There are many decisions/judgments favoring IT and are available in many threads of similar queries at LCI.

“Trial Court should Consider Responsibility of Husband towards Aged Parents also while deciding Maintenance for Wife!”

“Wife's Capability to Earn: Is No Reason to Reduce Maintenance Awarded to Her”

And decisions/judgments  e.g;

 

 

Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/900040 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Date of first hearing Date of first order Date of second hearing Date of second order : : : : 12th January 2017 12th January 2017 23rd February 2017 28th February 2017 Name of the Appellant : SHRI SHRIPATI PATHAK Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, SHRI VISHNU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NH – 30, NEW BYPASS, NEAR B.P. HIGHWAY SERVICES PETROL PUMP, ASOCHAK, PATNA, BIHAR – 800016 And final Order on; 05th July 2017.   

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Central Information Commissioner CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/315385 Kirubananthan K v. PIO, EPFO, Chennai RTI : 13.09.2016 FAO : Nil Second Appeal : 22.10.2016 Hearing : 31.07.2017 Appellant : Present Public Authority : Mr. Apurv Gautam, APFC Decided On : 02.08.2017  

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Central Information Commissioner CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/315385 Kirubananthan K v. PIO, EPFO, Chennai RTI : 13.09.2016 FAO : Nil Second Appeal : 22.10.2016 Hearing : 31.07.2017 Appellant : Present Public Authority : Mr. Apurv Gautam, APFC Decided On : 02.08.2017 FINAL ORDER  

 

WP/10690/2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 OF 2017 THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AURANGABAD VERSUS THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Chaudhary K.B. ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: September 06, 2017

 

“The husband seeking information cannot be said to be a stranger or a third party. The information sought by him also cannot be said to be confidential.”

 

You may pick up the relevant points..

Approach a very able LOCAL counsel as already suggested above..

 

thnks for information

You are welcome!