In a progressive order, a court in Delhi has refused to grant any interim maintenance to an educated woman who has done her Master in Business Administration but demanding money from Husband saying she is a jobless.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case which will be decided at the time of trial, disposing plea for interim maintenance of the woman, the lady Judge denied granting any interim relief to her stating “The complainant is from a well to do family and has also received compensation from her first husband. The complainant is highly qualified and capable of finding a source of income for herself. Allowing maintenance to her will only promote idleness and dependency on husband. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any maintenance to the complainant in view of her capacity to earn. Accordingly, no interim monetary relief is granted to the complainant.”
Also read: IPC and False Evidence: Implications
Domestic Violence Act
The woman in this case had claimed relief of interim maintenance under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act. She alleged that after her marriage in December 2018, her husband and in-laws harassed her for dowry and her father-in-law even molested her. The husband however claimed that the woman had concealed from him that she was already married and taken huge alimony from previous husband.
He also stated that Delhi High Court has already dismissed an appeal of the woman demanding enhancement of ad-interim maintenance previously granted to her, observing that she is enjoying a wealthier lifestyle than the husband.
In this case, the woman had demanded Rs. 50,000 per month maintenance from husband who is a Doctor claiming that he is earning more than 1,25,000 per month and avoiding maintenance. Whereas, the husband contended that he has already lost his job due to several criminal and civil cases filed by the wife due to which he could not focus on his job and that the wife is wealthier than him, has inherited several properties from her parents and has 2 cars at her disposal.
Also read: Religion is making a comeback in Law
Judgment
After looking at submissions by both parties, Judge Swayam Siddha Tripathy in her judgment denying maintenance to wife observed “The intention of the legislation is never to encourage wilful unemployment and unnecessary dependence on the husband. In the present case, the complainant is an MBA graduate and is qualified at par as her husband. She is able bodied and well educated however, she has chosen not to seek employment and instead be dependent on her husband.
The complainant has herself stated that she spent more than 1 Crore in her previous marriage and gave jewellery and article worth lacs. She also received 9 Lacs as settlement amount from first marriage. Thus, status of the complainant does not make it believable that if she is not provided with maintenance, she would be reduced to destitution or vagrancy and in fact it is quite the opposite”
Also read: Here is why Uddhav lost his father’s legacy to Eknath Shinde
Observation
The court also relied on observation by Hon’ble High Court in Meenu Chopra (supra) that principles of equity must be applied in cases of maintenance. Equity means fairness and evenness and it cannot be applied solitarily upon the aggrieved wife. In absence of any dependent, either of the qualified spouses can not be made responsible for other’s wellbeing considering that neither are on the verge of destitution.”
The Judgment was announced in the case of Shiny Verma Bakshi vs Dr. Guneet Singh Bakshi by MM Mahila Court Dwarka.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
