Tag Archives: no maintenance to earning wife

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

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.”

No maintenance to educated employed wife till court conducts detailed inquiry, records evidence, ascertains income : Madras HC

A well qualified wife, a doctor who is supposedly running  clinic and has staff etc, claims and wins maintenance decree at lower court. Husband appeals to Madras HC. At the HC wife claims that she has joined a Masters course, is without income and she has to maintain the kid. However The Honourable HC Orders “….7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside…”
============================

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/08/2011

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1115 of 2008

and

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

Dr.Prabhu Srinivasan  ..Petitioner

Vs

Ramaprabha ..Respondent

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

!For Petitioner … Mr.K.Balasundaram

^For Respondent … Mr.D.Rajagopal
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

:ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2008 in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 against his wife for divorce for dissolving the marriage which was solemnized on 06.02.2003 between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty. The said case has been filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The respondent/wife had filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. while so, the respondent/wife has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on 05.06.2007 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to her child and herself. Besides the respondent/wife has also prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for contesting the case and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for dress, medical expenses and for festival expenses.

3.The revision petitioner/husband has filed counter statement and opposed the interim maintenance case on various grounds. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsels on both the sides and on perusing the averments of both the parties, allowed the interlocutory application in part, stating that the revision petitioner/husband has pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, and another Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his son. The learned Judge had also ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the husband as litigation charges to his wife.

4.Aggrieved by the said decree and decretal order, the above revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent is also a qualified doctor and she is economically well of. As such, the interim maintenance order is not sustainable. The learned Judge, erroneously had ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent and the child. This amount is on the higher side since the revision petitioner does not have sufficient income from his profession to comply with the order. The revision petitioner is not even getting a sum of Rs.5000/- per month through his profession. The respondent is running a clinic and had employed assistant doctors, nurses, and technicians including driver. It clearly proved that the respondent gets sufficient income through her profession. Therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the respondent has joined in a master degree course and as such she is a student, and not an earning doctor. Further, the child is with the respondent and she has to provide good education, dress and rich food to the child. Therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions laid down on both sides had passed the interim maintenance, to the respondent. This order is a well considered one. As per order of the learned Judge, the revision petitioner is liable to pay about Rs.10,00,000/- i.e., from the date of filing the interim maintenance application till date, but the revision petitioner has wantonly and deliberately evading payment of maintenance, even though he gets sufficient income. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had ordered for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as maintenance to the child, which is fair and justifiable.

7.Regarding the maintenance to the respondent/wife, the learned Judge has to conduct a detailed enquiry after recording evidence from the revision petitioner and the respondent as to whether the respondent gets sufficient income to maintain herself and also find out the revision petitioner’s gross income and decide the issue. Therefore, the maintenance granted to the wife, i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months from the date of maintenance application till date is set aside. Regarding the litigation charges, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal, which is on the higher side. Hence, this court reduces the amount granted towards litigation charges to Rs.25,000/- as it is found to be fair and justifiable. This court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son, as per learned Judge order, from 05.06.2007 till date; along with litigation charge of a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of this total amount, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent/wife. The balance of maintenance payable to the child shall be cleared within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly ordered.

8.In the result, the above revision petition is allowed in part with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2007 in H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam is modified. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.

skn

To

The Additional Sub-Judge,

 

source

Indiakanoon.org

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting