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

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...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...