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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...