Woman loses alimony over matrimony profile
A woman who filed a claim for alimony a year after divorce lost the case due to her online claims. Her profile on a matrimonial webiste showed a different set of facts than what she had claimed in the petition for alimony.
The woman is 29 now and her ex-husband, 34. They were married in 2012. The new bride returned to her parents just 25 days after marriage. She was allegedly under stress and depression and was being treated for it. After several failed attempts to lead a married life with her, the husband filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty in 2015. In August 2016, a family court dissolved the marriage.
A little over a year later, the woman filed an appeal against the divorce in the High Court (HC). She also filed a petition before the family court seeking a permanent alimony of Rs 40,00,000. She claimed that the husband worked as a manager in a private bank and also ran a business. She claimed to be unemployed and said she had to take care of her 90-year-old grandfather. Her petition was dismissed by the family court after which she filed an appeal in the HC. Both her cases, one for alimony and the other challenging the divorce, was before the HC.
The HC dismissed her claim for alimony on the grounds that she had a better income than her husband.
The husband contended that she held a masters degree in business management and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs 45,000. She had also recently sold agricultural land for Rs 81 lakh and was well off and did not require alimony.
The court said, “Admi-ttedly, they spent life together as husband and wife only for about a period of 45 days. That also is a serious fact to be considered, while considering the application seeking maintenance.”
Dismissing her plea for alimony the HC said, “There is absolutely no material to indicate that the appellant/wife is hapless and had no income. On the contrary, she appears to be having more sources of income than the husband. She has even profiled herself on the Internet proclaiming that she has an income of Rs 1 to Rs 2 lakhs per annum, that her grandfather is in a fit state of health and he is practicing as a chartered accountant.”
The reasons she cited for the delay of one year in filing the appeal against the divorce decree was the death of her mother and the deteriorating health of her grandfather.
The HC in its order noted that the appeal against the divorce and the petition for alimony were filed on the same day. So, her contention that she was under shock and therefore delayed in filing the appeal could not be accepted. Her mother had died in 2011, more than a year before her wedding. So, the delay for filing the appeal against the divorce could not have been that death.
Dismissing her appeal against the divorce the HC said, “We tried our best to satisfy ourselves that there should be some reason, at least, in order to condone the delay. We are unable to find any reason at all. On the contrary, we are disturbed by the manner in which contentions have been pleaded which runs absolutely contrary to the very case of the wife herself. It appears that the wife has not come to the court with clean hands.”
The HC also noted that “The entire claim of the wife appears to be only to harass the husband. Therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.”