• Criminal Procedural questions/ CPC

Looking for a order/judgement of HC's (Bombay & others) & Supreme court Rejecting interim maintance U/S 24 of HMA to the wife on the following grounds:- 
 
1) non submission of vital documents such as salary certificate & statement of assets & liabilities. 
& 
2) Wife is a independent, qualified & earning lady. 

Please guide.

( couple didn't have any children so no question of custody)
Asked 7 years ago in Family Law
Religion: Hindu

3 answers received in 2 hours.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

4 Answers

Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with identical situation observed that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced hereunder:-

"In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi AzadEducation College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service? It really put a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a „dole? to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ?dole? to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendent lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working hours

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
95215 Answers
7611 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

There are many on the second ground. I am not aware of first ground.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1789-1790 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. [deleted] of 2007)

Anu Kaul …….. Appellant

Versus

Rajeev Kaul ……..Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% RESERVED ON : 19.04.2012

PRONOUNCED ON: 14.05.2012

+ CRL.REV.P. 344/2011

DAMANREET KAUR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Sugam Puri, Advocate

versus

INDERMEET JUNEJA & ANR ..... Respondents

Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
22920 Answers
498 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

If the women is working, earning and able to maintain herself then application under section 24 of HMA is not maintainable.

Because section 24 if HMA is only for those who is unable to maintain herself or himself.

1. Ekjot Chatwal vs Balbir Chatwal

2. Dhamanpreet kaur vs indermeet Singh Juneja

3.Ashit Mukharjee vs Sushmitha Mukharjee

Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
6307 Answers
302 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Under Section 24 of the Act, the court has to see if the applicant who may either be wife or husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, and then award expenses of the proceeding and such sum every month, having regard to the applicant's own income and the income of the respondent which may seem to the court to be reasonable.

There are various judgments declining the petitioner's prayer for grant of maintenance pendente lite if the petitioner is employed and self sustained.

The following supreme court judgment is also a sample:

Judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14183 OF 2007 RAJESH BURMANN ... APPELLANT VERSUS

Rajesh Burmann Vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Barman) [2008] INSC 1862 (4 November 2008)

C.K. THAKKER, J.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
85416 Answers
2239 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer