Skip to main content

Qualified wife can't sit idle and claim maintenance: Bombay High Court

A well qualified wife is not entitled to remain idle and harass her husband by claiming maintenance when she is capable to earn; she is not entitled to take advantage when she is in the wrong. This is what a family court said while rejecting the plea for maintenance from her estranged husband.

From the evidence placed before it, the court held, "It is clear that the wife has a good capacity to earn, thus she is not liable to get maintenance from her husband."

What were wife's grounds for demanding maintenance?
The woman had recently approached the court, seeking maintenance. Her application claimed that she was tortured at the hands of her in-laws, so she was staying separately in her maternal house since 2011. Her parents had to bear her additional expenses, the application claimed, and demanded maintenance from her husband.

What did she say to establish husband's riches?
She further claimed that her husband and his family had an affluent, business background, and makes profits of Rs15 lakh per month. She said that he owns several properties across the country and also in Dubai. "The husband has six companies, and 20 bank accounts in Mumbai, Bangalore and Dubai. His younger brother is working in London, his two siblings are into family business. He frequently travels abroad for his garment business. Considering the husband's status, the woman has demanded a monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh," reads the copy.

How did the husband counter her arguments?
The husband, however, claimed that in the first place, the woman is not his lawfully wedded wife, since the marriage was dissolved by way of talaq on September 2014. He also stated in his reply that she is a dietician and conducts private sessions at reputable institutes in Mumbai. He said she earns nothing less than Rs50,000 a month. Also, she has made huge investments, amounting to Rs 1 crore, in the form of gold and diamonds, which she has hidden in a separate bank locker, he claimed.

Why did the court say this case was different?
After going through the arguments by both the parties, the court held that as per the revised Muslim law, though a wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband till the time she does not remarry, this case is different. "In this case, the woman is capable enough to earn and take care of herself. Thus, as per a judgment passed by a Madhya Pradesh high court, the woman, who is well qualified, cannot seek maintenance and cannot harass her husband," the court said, and rejected her plea.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-qualified-wife-can-t-sit-idle-and-claim-maintenance-bombay-high-court-2063586

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even