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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...