Wife was earning rs.28000/- but now submitted resignation

The above matter is related to: Wife filed maintenance case U/s 125 of CrPC and asked fro Interim Maintenacne. Any citations applicable to the circumstances would help me. Please refere the same.

Thanks in advance.

when was the case filed till when wife was working  .Did she left recenlty or before filing the case grounds why she left her job. whta is her qualification any issue out of thwe said wedlock.

Adv.NIKHIL SETH

Mumbai

Dear Siv, 

Here is a landmark case that in a nutshell says that a wife (otherwise capable of maintaining herself) cannot be allowed to live as a parasite and off her husband's income just to cause maximum harassment to him. If she is capable of earning (which may be proved in your case by previous salary/returns etc) - then she is not entitled to any maintenance. 

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”

There are many more for you to search !

Good Luck !

Bharat Chugh 

Advocate Supreme Court of India

Mens Rights Activist

bharat.law06@gmail.com

The ruling given by the learned member will help you and you prove that wife is able to work.

may be this bcz of mental trauma due to disturbed marriage.

Context: Interim Maintenance denied in DV case when wife was working earlier
Complainant: Daman Reet Kaur
Respondent: Indermeet Singh
Judge: Pooja Talwar, MM, Mahila Court
Court: Saket District Court


News item here:

https://wonderwoman.intoday.in/wonderwom ... hubby.html

--
An educated ex-wife can't seek money from hubby
Naziya Alvi

Rejecting a woman's plea for maintenance from her estranged husband, metropolitan magistrate Pooja Talwar said: "The complainant is a well-educated lady who had been earning approximately Rs 50,000 per month from her last job. If she has chosen not to work... she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own deed."

The court, which passed its order in favour of respondent Indermeet Singh, agreed with the submissions of defence counsel Tarun Goomber who said having capacity to work and not working falls under the maxim of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that "no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself". "The gist of all the judgments filed by the respondent's counsel is that when the complainant is an able bodied person having capacity to earn and has actually been earning in the past is not entitled to receive any maintenance. When she could sustain herself by earning a handsome salary in the past, she would be able to get a job if she earnestly tries to search for one now," Talwar said.

The complainant, Daman Reet Kaur, had filed a case seeking interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. She alleged that she had been subjected to various forms of torture by her husband Indermeet, an employee with a Noida- based software company who draws an annual salary of Rs 20 lakh. She further claimed that her husband had an extra income of a few lakh rupees from a part-time computer business.

Daman Reet applied for maintenance, claiming that "she is facing extreme hardship as she was enjoying a lavish lifestyle, and therefore needs a suitable maintenance for food, clothing, residence apart from other basic necessities..." The defence counsel produced pay slips of the woman's salary before the court that proved that she was earning more than Rs 50,000 per month, which is sufficient to sustain her. However, for the child's maintenance, Indermeet's counsel claimed that the father was himself willing to bear the child's expenses.

The court, however, refrained from commenting on the subject, saying that the present application only seeks maintenance for the woman and not the child.

"Since the respondent has conceded to the fact that he is ready to maintain the child, he can do so voluntarily of his own accord," the court added.

Coming back to the woman's maintenance, the court said even if she is not earning anything at present, she is not eligible for it.

"The situation today is that she is not earning and that she has no money to sustain herself, but then it cannot be denied that she is in a capacity to work and with earnest effort she shall be able to search a suitable job for herself," the court said.

Not eligible for relief

* According to Section 125 of the CrPC ( that deals with maintenance of wives), a person is liable to pay maintenance to his wife who is unable to maintain herself

The complainant was earning Rs 50,000 per month from her last job

She alleged that she was subjected to various forms for torture by her husband and sought maintenance from him

Defence counsel said having capacity to work and not working falls under the maxim of Anglo- Saxon jurisprudence that "no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself"

The court said since she is capable of earning a livelihood, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance 

Dear All,

Thank you for help.

Addressing above facts I would reply in single post to all.

To Adv. Nikhil Seth

Dear Sir, Wife file maintenance case in 2009 and Interim application/petition in 2009. Family court granted interim Rs.5000/- in 2009. Wife did not said in the petition that she has working experinece and earning experinece prior to filing the petition. Now I found that wife started working since 2008 (salary details are not known to me) and now also wife is working  and earning Rs.28,000/- per month.

Marraiege happened in 2007 and only 20 days wife and husband lived together and none of the husband family memebrs lived in the matrimonial home whereas wife filed 498A case at her place citing her relatives as witnesses in the year 2008. Just after filing the dowry case wife started working and was earning.

The reasons for resigning the Job: Wife has personal issues.

To: Nina Rakheja

Dear Madam,

Wife filed 498A case against uneducated old parents and also uneducated sister of the husband and these people are attending the courts since 2008 to till date. While they are travelling more than 700km to atend the court hearing still able to work in agriculture fileds to earn food.

While husband and parents of the hsuabd are subjected to much of the mental and physical harassment, can this wife claim that she is harassed.

One of the big life of the wife as below:

As per 498A case: Wife and brother of wife was necked out of matrimonial home by husband and relatives of husband on the last day of her stay in matrimonial home, then filed 498A case.

As per maintenance case: Wife was left in the matrimonial home alone and husband did not return home for 2 days and wife was not having food during these 2 days then called brother and brother came to matrimonil ahome and during the time period the brother of the wife was in the matrimonial home husband was not available on phone and did not return to matrimonial home aslo, hence left home later filed 498A case.

He.....He 

"Wife was left in the matrimonial home alone and husband did not return home for 2 days and wife was not having food during these 2 days " 

Why didnt you rebutt her claims provisions purchased by husband were in the house for the entire month isnt it funny wife capable of cooking and intentionally behaving lazy or seeking to starve herself .....in order to claim maintanence .

Stanly,

You see the contradiction of the versions that reveal that only one incident is possible to happen not both..... means it is clear that wife approached with unclean hands to the court..... she shall be in jail for making false complaints against the in-laws.

SIv , 

Nothing happens to her,,,,,,,,,,,,,, her petition may only get dismissed  and you may be aquited from 498 A after fighting 498 a for 5-7 yrs and get drained out of your finincial resources or judgement may come as no maintanence awarded to wife .Thats it   although you can file section 340 pre-jury .

my family is planning file damages (civil) cases against her and against the state .... is it recomended?