Category Archives: maintenance denied

wife earning 74000 NOT entitled to maintenance though NRI husband earns 75 lakhs p.a. Cal HC Classic !!

wife earning 74000 NOT entitled to maintenance though NRI husband earns 75 lakhs p.a. Cal HC Classic

Brief facts / bloggers notes

  • Husband files for divorce on grounds of cruelty
  • As always wife seeks $$$ moolaaah !!
  • Lower court notes that wife is gainfully employed and is NOT entitled to maintenance
  • however some 30,000 lawyers fee granted (though not stated, please note that lawyer fee is ONE TIME ONLY.
  • Wife goes on appeal to CALCUTTA HC
  • HC rightly observes that interim maintenance / alimony is for temporary reprieve till final orders are passed and a woman earning approx 74 K is NOT entitled to further maintenance
  • Special marriage act case
  • However , IMHO the dictum / logic should apply to other cases also !!

////////////9. The object of Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is to provide a temporary financial support pending any action under Chapter V or VI of the said Act to the wife who has no independent income sufficient to maintain herself. The present income of the wife/petitioner as it appears from her aforementioned salary certificates is not less than Rs. 74,000/- per month which is sufficient for her support particularly when she herself has assessed her requirement at Rs. 50,000/- in the application for alimony pendente lite.

The learned trial Judge in the order impugned has considered the requirement of the wife/petitioner vis-à-vis her income and is absolutely justified in refusing the prayer of the wife/petitioner for alimony pendente lite. The order impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.////////////

Image result for CALCUTTA HC IMAGES

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Somdatta Chatterjee Nee … vs Anindya Chatterjee on 11 June, 2019

Form No. J (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswajit Basu

C.O. No. 1972 Of 2016
(Assigned)

Somdatta Chatterjee nee Raychaudhuri
versus
Anindya Chatterjee

For Petitioner : Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,
Mr. Anindya Halder

For Opposite Party : Mr. Kallol Basu,
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,
Mr. Chhandak Dutta

Heard on : 11.06.2019.

Judgment On : 11.06.2019.

Biswajit Basu, J.

  1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 17 dated March 18, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 2015 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 31 of 2015.
  2. The husband/opposite party filed the connected matrimonial suit seeking dissolution of his marriage with the wife/petitioner by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty.
  3. The wife in the said suit filed an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 praying alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The said application of the wife/petitioner was registered before the learned trial Judge as Misc. Case No. 27 of 2015.
  4. The learned trial Judge by the order impugned has disposed of the said Misc. Case thereby refused to grant any alimony pendente lite to the wife/petitioner on the ground that she has sufficient independent income to support herself. However, the learned trial Judge by the said order has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the wife petitioner on account of litigation expenses.
  5. The grievance of the wife/petitioner is that the learned trial Judge while refusing her prayer for alimony has failed to appreciate that the husband is working in all reputed organizations in USA and is earning 1,20,000 USD per annum which in Indian currency is Rs. 75,00,000/- per annum and she is entitled to maintenance proportionate to the said income of the husband as her income is much less than her requirement and entitlement.
  6. The wife/petitioner in the application for alimony pendente lite has disclosed her income from salary at Rs. 48,000/- per month. She in the said application at paragraph 14 stated her requirement with break up. The said paragraph 14 of the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is quoted below: “14. That the petitioner states that to maintain herself as per the status of the respondent the petitioner needs a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month in following heads : Rs. 10,000/- as household maintenance and other utilities Rs. 4000/- as pocket allowance and Rs. 22,000/- for goods, groceries, clothes and other daily needs and Rs. 14,000/- legal expenses.”
  7. The wife/petitioner, therefore, has assessed her requirement to maintain herself as per the status of the husband/opposite party at Rs. 50,000/- per month. She has admitted that as on the date of filing of the said application her earning was Rs. 48,000/- per month as such her income on the date of filing of the said application for alimony pendente lite was sufficient for her support.
  8. The wife/petitioner on cross-examination has admitted that house rent allowances of Rs. 14,133/- and transport allowances of Rs. 3534/- are being reimbursed by her employer. Therefore, the wife/petitioner by virtue of her employment is receiving money from her employer on some of the heads on which her prayer for alimony pendente lite is founded.
  9. In terms of the direction passed by this Court the wife/petitioner has produced her salary certificate for the months of December 2018, January 2019 and March 2019. On perusal of the said salary certificates it appears that the wife/petitioner on account of her salary in the month of December 2018 and January 2019 had received salary of Rs. 74,624/- and in the month of March 2019 she had received a sum of Rs. 81,219/-.
  10. The object of Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is to provide a temporary financial support pending any action under Chapter V or VI of the said Act to the wife who has no independent income sufficient to maintain herself. The present income of the wife/petitioner as it appears from her aforementioned salary certificates is not less than Rs. 74,000/- per month which is sufficient for her support particularly when she herself has assessed her requirement at Rs. 50,000/- in the application for alimony pendente lite.
  11. The learned trial Judge in the order impugned has considered the requirement of the wife/petitioner vis-à-vis her income and is absolutely justified in refusing the prayer of the wife/petitioner for alimony pendente lite. The order impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.
  12. C.O. No. 1972 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

(Biswajit Basu, J.) SK

Advertisements

Wife living separately without any reason NOT entitled to CrPC 125 maintenance. Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lawyer wife leaves Matrimonial home few DAYS days after marriage. Goes away with her brother ostensibly to find him a (find the brother) a match. Wife Never returns back even after husband calling her back. Wife Claims harassment, cruelty etc and seeks maintenance. Looses at Madhya Pradesh HC based on FACTs of the case

money_cash

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH INDORE

( Single Bench )

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain )

Criminal Revision No.829 of 2014

Anil S/o Shri Suganchandra Jain

VERSUS

Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Anil Kumar Jain and State of M.P.

********

Shri S.J.Polekar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.

https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

********

ORDER

( Passed on this th day of November, 2016 )

THIS revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.203/2014 whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of order.

[2] It is an admitted fact that applicant’s marriage was performed with non-applicant on 20.04.2008 and they lived together first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days i.e. 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008. Thereafter non-applicant/wife had left matrimonial home and since then she is living in her parental home at Ratlam. She is an enrolled Advocate since the year 1991.

[3] Non-applicant/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating that when she lived in her matrimonial home since 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 during that period her husband (applicant) and mother-in-law had so harassed her that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home, before leaving the matrimonial home her https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Applicant’s first marriage was performed with Ranjana but only after two months she divorced the applicant due to harassment of applicant. Non-applicant is having no means to maintain herself whereas applicant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicine and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. On these grounds she claimed maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application.

[4] Applicant in the reply denied the allegations and stated that he and his mother had never harassed the non-applicant. On 23.05.2008, in the absence of applicant non-applicant had left matrimonial home along with her brother Anil and one Shrenik Bapna. On 26.05.2008 applicant went to Ratlam to take non-applicant with him, however, she refused to come with the applicant, thereafter applicant made many attempts to take back her https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick but she was not ready to come back and live with applicant. Thus, she is living in her parental home without any reason. The applicant is hardly earned Rs.3,000/- per month and he has to maintain his sick mother also; whereas non-applicant is an Advocate and has sufficient income to maintain herself. In such circumstances, she is not entitled for maintenance.

[5] Both the parties adduced evidence. Trial Court held that the non-applicant was harassed by her mother-in-law and applicant. Hence, she had sufficient reason not to live with her husband/applicant. Applicant is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per year whereas non-applicant/wife had no income from the profession as an Advocate. Hence, Trial Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of order. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.

[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the non- applicant had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and is living in her parental home without any reason. The finding of trial court that only in 12 days non-applicant was so harassed that she was forced to leave matrimonial home is erroneous. Actually she is practicing lawyer since the year 1991 at Ratlam and has sufficient income to maintain herself. Thus, she is not entitled for maintenance. Trial court gave a finding that applicant used to earn Rs.50,000/- per year; whereas directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per year to the non-applicant. Such direction is against the evidence on record. Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. For this purpose learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Kushwaha V/s. Smt. Pooja reported in 2014 (2) JLJ 189 and Savita Bai V/s. Prahlad reported in 2013 (3) M.P. Weekly Note 77.

[7] On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and submitted that the non- applicant/wife is ready to live with the applicant; however, due to harassment she is compelled to live separately. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Bai Patel V/s. Shyam Kumar Patel reported in JT 2002 (3) SC 409 held that the responsibility of husband to maintain his wife and wife has the right to claim maintenance so long as she stays away from the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances. This court in the case of Dalibai V/s. Rajendra Singh reported in 2006 (1) MPLJ 495 held that wife left matrimonial house and started living separately due to harassment by husband. To prove this fact statement of wife is sufficient to hold that there was reasonable and sufficient cause available to her to live separately, hence the revision be dismissed.

[8] After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record.

[9] This Court has to examine the findings of Trial Court as to whether non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately and whether she is unable to maintain herself.

[10] Admittedly after marriage non-applicant/wife lived in her matrimonial home first time for 7 days. There is no allegation that during that period she was harassed by her in-laws, thereafter she lived in her matrimonial home from 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 i.e. for 12 days, thereafter she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. In this regard it is useful to refer Para 9 of her deposition in which she admitted that she was having a mobile phone and used to talk with her brother, however, she has not made any complaint about her harassment to her brother. She left matrimonial home with her brother Anil. But she has not made any complaint to anybody or lodged a report at Police Station. On the other hand, her brother Anil Chhajed (PW-2) deposed that on 22.05.2008 she came to Ratlam to select a girl for his marriage. Anil did not depose that non-applicant has complained him about harassment in her matrimonial home. https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ In the cross-examination of the applicant no question was asked about alleged cruelty and harassment.

[11] I would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Savita Bai (Supra) in which after marriage Savita Bai resided only for 8 days in the house of her husband and thereafter, she left the house without any reason and unable to prove the charge of harassment. Under such circumstances, this Court has held that â??the applicant-wife is not entitled for maintenance.â? In the present case also non-applicant-wife resided in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed. It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl for marriage of her brother. https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ Thus, it can not be held that she was thrown with force from her matrimonial home or she was forced to leave her matrimonial home.

[12] Learned counsel for the non-applicants placed reliance on the judgment of Laxmi Bai Patel (Supra) and Dalibai (Supra). Facts of these cases are quite different, https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ therefore, these cases are not helpful to the non-applicants.

[13] With the aforesaid, I am of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately is not sustainable in law. Non- applicant/wife is residing separately without any reason, hence, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

 

Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court is hereby set-aside and the revision is hereby allowed.

[ JARAT KUMAR JAIN ] JUDGE

ns + Adarsh

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak

Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

No maintenance under DV act if DV is NOT proven!! Husband has also won divorce on grounds of cruelty. Himachal HC

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in Anil Kumar vs Shashi Bala, has held that if there is no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, no order of maintenance can be granted invoking the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

In this case, though the appellate court found that no evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate violence, partly allowed the appeal, and held that since complainant has to live and maintain herself and she has no independent source of income, she is entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act.

On appeal, the high court observed that the complaint nowhere suggests that maltreatment and violence as defined under the Act was ever meted to the complainant.

The court also observed that overwhelming evidence is available on record suggestive of the fact that the complainant herself had left the house.

Observing that the appellate court ‘got swayed by emotions’, the bench presided by Justice Sandeep Sharma said: “Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought to not have granted any amount on account of maintenance.”

**

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 30 of 2011

Decided on: May 2, 2017

 

Anil Kumar ………Petitioner
Versus
Shashi Bala and others …Respondents

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.1
Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

 

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Delinked from FAO(HMA) No. 205 of 2011.

(2). Instant petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 4.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009, reversing judgment dated 24.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur in Domestic Violence Complaint No. 2-1 of 2009, whereby application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, ‘Act’), having been filed by respondent No.1-complainant (‘complainant’, hereafter), came to be dismissed.

(3). Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the complainant preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that she was married to appellant-Anil Kumar as per Hindu rites and customary ceremonies on 17.6.2003 and two children were born out of said wedlock. Complainant further averred that she was turned out by her in-laws. Complainant further claimed that after being ousted from the house, she remained in her parents’ house for eight months and came back on 22.11.2008, when her father-in-law did not allow her to enter the house. After two days, she went back to her parents’ house. On 14.12.2008, when she again came back, she was taken out of the room and was not allowed to meet her children. Complainant further alleged that false allegations have been leveled against her. She further complained that on 23.12.2008, all of her family members had left the house by locking it and since then she had been residing in her courtyard and bathroom respectively. Her husband had also gone away with other family members. In the aforesaid background, Complainant prayed for providing protection under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act.

(4). Petitioner alongwith proforma respondents No.2 and 3, by way of reply, refuted the aforesaid claim of the complainant and stated that false and frivolous application has been moved by the complainant to put undue pressure as well as to cause harassment to them. However, petitioner admitted the complainant to be his legally wedded wife but specifically stated that she developed illicit relations, as a result of which, divorce petition has been filed. As per petitioner, despite repeated requests, complainant failed to mend her ways and, on 23.6.2008, was caught red-handed. Petitioner specifically denied allegations of maltreatment and claimed that all the basic necessities of life were provided to the complainant when she remained with him. With the aforesaid submissions, petitioner claimed that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the application.

(5). Complainant, by way of rejoinder, reasserted her claim as put forth in the complaint and specifically denied the allegations as contained in the reply having been filed by the respondents.

(6). Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, framed following questions, for determination:

“1. Whether the applicant is entitled for protection and relief as claimed in the application? If so, to what extent?

2. Final Order.”

(7). However, the fact remains that learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the application having been filed by the complainant and accordingly, rejected the same.

(8). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the rejection of aforesaid application, complainant preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009. Learned appellate court below, while partly accepting the appeal filed by the complainant, quashed and set aside order dated 24.3.2009 and held complainant entitled to maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/- per month, from the date of order. At this stage, it may be noticed that while passing aforesaid judgment, learned appellate court specifically concluded that no evidence has been led on record by the complainant to prove serious allegations as leveled against the respondents in the complainant. The court below further concluded that no evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate violence, if any, by the respondents and accordingly, held her not entitled to protection, residence and custody order in her favour. Learned appellate court below, while partly allowing appeal, held that since complainant has to live and maintain herself and she has no independent source of income, she is entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act.

(9). Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to the impugned judgment passed by court below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. While inviting attention of this Court to impugned order passed by court below, Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that once learned Court below had come to the conclusion that no evidence worth the name has been led on record by the complainant, to prove violence, if any, against her by the petitioner and his family members, there was no occasion, whatsoever, to provide maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. Mr. Sharma, also invited attention of this Court to the evidence led on record by the complainant in support of her complaint filed before learned trial Court, to demonstrate that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of learned trial Court, whereby it has rightly come to the conclusion that complainant has not been able to prove contents of application, so as to make herself entitled to reliefs under. Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act. Mr. Sharma, further contended that earlier, complainant had filed divorce petition against petitioner leveling serious allegations of sexual harassment against his father but same was later on withdrawn. Mr. Sharma also invited attention of this Court to the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by matrimonial court in the petition having been filed by the petitioner, wherein allegations with regard to illicit relations of complainant with one Jeet Ram, stood duly proved. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma, prayed that impugned order passed by learned appellate Court below may be set aside and that of learned trial Court be restored.

(10). Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel representing the complainant, supported the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court below. Mr. Vashishta while refuting aforesaid contentions having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Court below, wherein he has specifically come to the conclusion that since complainant has to live and maintain herself, and she is having no independent source of income, she is entitled for monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act.

(11). He also contended that a very meager sum of Rs.1,000/- per month has been awarded by the learned Court below as such, there is no scope of interference, specifically in view of the fact that it stands duly proved on record that respondent-complainant is legally wedded wife of petitioner and it is/was his bounden duty to maintain her during subsistence of their marriage. Mr. Vashishta also made this Court to travel through evidence led on record by the complainant before learned trial Court, to suggest that learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record, which were later on rectified in accordance with law, by the learned appellate Court below, in the appeal having been filed by the complainant. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Vashishta, prayed for dismissal of petition.

(12). I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and also gone through the record very carefully.

(13). Before adverting to the genuineness and correctness of the impugned order passed by appellate court below as well as submissions of learned counsel representing the parties, it may be noticed that marriage of petitioner with complainant stands dissolved on the ground of cruelty, as is evident from decree passed by learned District Judge in HMA No. 18 of 2008, on 3.3.2011, whereby matrimonial court, while accepting petition filed by the petitioner has dissolved marriage on the ground of cruelty. It may also be stated at this stage that aforesaid judgment having been passed by matrimonial court was laid challenge before this Court by way of FAO No. 205 of 2011, which came to be decided by this Court on 2.5.2017. This Court, vide aforesaid judgment, while dismissing appeal having been preferred by the complainant, has upheld the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by matrimonial court.

(14). This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the perversity, if any, in the impugned judgment passed by appellate court, carefully perused pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly compels this Court to agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel representing petitioner that learned appellate Court below has failed to appreciate evidence adduced on record by respective parties in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record. Bare perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court below itself suggests that even appellate court was not convinced of evidence led on record, which could make complainant entitled for protection as claimed by way of application under Section 12 of the Act. Learned appellate Court below, in para 16 of the impugned judgment has categorically stated that from the record, it appears that serious allegations had been leveled against complainant and no evidence had been brought for providing maintenance and as such she was not held entitled to protection, residence and custody order in her favour. It has also come in the judgment passed by learned Court below that no violence, if any, on the part of petitioner was proved. While granting compensation of Rs.1,000/- per month, in favour of the complainant, learned appellate Court below took into consideration status of complainant, who admittedly had to live and maintain herself and she had no independent source of income. But, if evidence led on record by the complainant before learned trial Court, to prove contents of her application under Section 12 of the Act, is seen and perused carefully, it nowhere suggests that maltreatment and violence as defined under the Act was ever meted to the complainant. There is no specific allegation, if any, of beatings given by husband or family members, rather there is bald statement of complainant (AW-1) that she was maltreated but no specific instance as such has been reported with regard to violence, if any, done on her by the respondents. Father of the complainant (AW-3) namely Bihari Lal has also not stated anywhere anything specific with regard to violence, if any, committed by petitioner or his family members. Apart from above, no independent witness, if any, from locality was associated to prove allegations of maltreatment and violence in terms of provisions contained in the Act. As far as allegations with regard to throwing complainant from the house are concerned, there is evidence led on record by the petitioner, that complainant left the house at her own, after being caught red handed with one Jeet Ram, with whom, she had illicit relations (as stood proved in the divorce petition). All the witnesses of the respondent have stated that complainant left the house to answer call of nature and never turned up thereafter.

(15). This Court, after having bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that appellate court below, while granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant got swayed by emotions and completely ignored overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that complainant herself had left the house. Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought not have granted any amount on account of maintenance. Moreover, as has been noticed above, marriage between the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated 3.3.2011, which has been further upheld by his Court and as such, this Court sees no force, much less substantial, in the complaint of the complainant, which was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

(16). Consequently, in view of above, judgment dated 4.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009 is set aside and judgment dated 24.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur in Domestic Violence Complaint No. 2-1 of 2009 is upheld.

However, keeping in view the fact that instant petition under Section 12 of the Act remained pending adjudication till passing of decree of dissolution of marriage i.e. wherein allegations with regard to illicit relationship of complainant stood proved, this court deems it fit to grant/award of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, to be paid by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today, as maintenance under Section 12 of the Act.

(17). The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.

 

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge

 

 

May 2, 2017
(Vikrant)

 

Indian wife demands Rs. 40,00,000 just after 25 day marriage! High Court dismisses her claim & says “…The entire claim of wife only to harass husband…”

Woman loses alimony over matrimony profile

Woman loses alimony over matrimony profile
Posts on the matrimonial website contradicted her claim of being unemployed, with an aged grandfather to take care of

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.”

#Wife #suppressing employment details, earlier agreement, guilty of #CONTEMPT, #Denied #Maintenance. #Fine Imposed #DelhiHC

Wife suppressed the fact that she was gainfully employed at the time of claiming maintenance. Wife also suppressed an earlier undertaking given by her to settle and NOT initiate further proceedings. Held : Wife guilty of contempt of court. Maintenance denied with cost.

stock-photo-open-law-book-with-a-judges-gavel-resting-on-top-of-the-pages-in-a-courtroom-or-law-enforcement-146730020

Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur on 25 January, 2010

Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: January 07, 2010

Date of Order: January 25, 2010

+ Cont. Cas(C) 482 of 2008

25.01.2010

Gurbinder Singh …Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.M. Issar, Advocates

Versus

Manjit Kaur …Respondents
Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate along with respondent in person.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition against respondent alleging violation of an undertaking given to the Court of Additional District Judge, Jallandhar on 8th September 2000. https://bit.ly/2Iaztio.

2. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. The petitioner was in the Army and the wife was working as a teacher in S.D. Model School, Jalandhar Cantt. The divorce and various other proceedings were going on between the parties. The parties with the intervention of their counsels entered into a settlement and this settlement was recorded by the Court. In that settlement, the respondent (wife) agreed that she will not initiate any type of action against petitioner or against children of the parties or against the parents of the petitioner and other relatives of the petitioner (the children were at that time living with the petitioner) before the Court of law or before any other authority and she would not do anything which would affect the character, status or reputation of the petitioner. The petitioner also gave a similar undertaking that he would not disturb respondent in any manner and he would not institute any action against her either before the Court of law or before any authority and he will not try to castigate honour or character or reputation in any manner https://bit.ly/2Iaztio . Thereafter, before this Court in April’05, she (respondent) again filed an affidavit that she would abide by the undertaking given tothe learned ADJ on 8th September 2000 and she would not harass or humiliate the petitioner in future and will not create any cause of action afresh. This undertaking was given by way of an affidavit. Thereafter,the respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Jallandhar Court in August’ 04 claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had neglected to maintain her and she had no source of income. There is no doubt that the respondent had a right to claim maintenance from the petitioner, if she was not able to maintain herself. A perusal of the ex parte order obtained by her from the Court of Jallandhar shows that she concealed all material facts from the Court at Jallandhar. She did not disclose that she was working as a teacher in a school at Jallandhar and that there was an agreement between the parties arrived before learned ADJ, Delhi and that she had also filed an affidavit in the High Court that she would not unnecessarily harass the husband. Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the Court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side, after givingan undertaking to the Court that she would not harass the petitioner (husband), I consider this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her. The respondent appeared in person today in the Court and admitted that at the time she filed the petition in the Jallandhar Court, she was gainfully employed as a teacher and she continued to remain in employment till 2008i.e. even after passing of the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. https://bit.ly/2Iaztio A perusal of the ex parte order passed by learned JM would show that the respondent had concealed from the JM about her own employment, her salary from the school and her assets and contended that the respondent was drawing a pension of Rs.10,000/- per monthand his income from other sources was Rs.20,000/- per month and she obtained an order of grant of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application. She did not disclose to this Court when she filedher affidavit in this Court in April, 2005 that Cont.Cas(C) 482/2008 Gurbinder Singh v. Manjit Kaur Page 2 Of 3 she had filed a petition at Jallandhar Court which was going on ex parte or that she had already preferred a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C which was pending.

3. I consider that the conduct of the wife (respondent herein) of not disclosing to this Court about a petition being pursued by her and her conduct of concealing the material information from the https://bit.ly/2Iaztio Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jallandhar obtaining an ex parte order was contemptuous and violation of an undertaking given by her.

4. I, therefore, hold the respondent guilty of contempt and a fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on her. https://bit.ly/2Iaztio However, after her retirement, if she seeks maintenance for herself after disclosing to the Court concerned about her pension and other income and properties, which she holds in Delhi and other places, she would be free to make a petition regarding maintenance before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. With above order, the petition stands disposed of.