yes . if wife has filed for divorce both parties can make application to family court for conversion of petition for divorce into divorce by mutual consent . you have to in your written statement deny allegations made by wife .

she wont be entitled to maintenance . if wife is highly qualified and working and her income more than husband she wont get maintenance . wife cannot claim any share in husband parents property . husband should not make any claims but he has to deny all allegations made .

The petition of divorce can be withdrawn with the permission of court and then a joint petition for divorce may be filed. The husband can file a supplementary reply and express his willingness to divorce, which can then be followed by the filing of a joint petition for divorce.

The wife is very clearly disqualified from claiming alimony/maintenance as her income is 1.5 times that of husband. So, she will not get any alimony. She has no right under the existing law to claim any share in the property of her husband. Husband cannot make any claim against her, albeit he has all the legal rights to oppose her claims.

shw wont get alimony . court will consider fact that she is earning more than you sufficient to maintain herself and lead a decent life number of judgements on the issue . it is only when she is unable to maintain herself in same life style as she was leading when staying with husband would court award her alimony .

marriage expenses borne by wife parents would not constitute dowry . in any case wife has to prove these allegations . claim for compensation for these expenses would not be tenable

Marriage expenses do not come within the ambit of 'dowry'. Every thing she claims will not be accepted on face value by the court. She has to prove her allegations.

she can not claim maitenance. about dowery she has to prove u guilty

it all depends upon reply you have filed in DV case . have you in your reply mentioned at wife is earning more than husband . mentioned where she is working , her last drawn salary etc . court passes orders on basis of documents on record .

wife may have wanted to file for divorce but based on legal advise she may have opted for Dv case . in the alternative she may file for divorce later

Well advised by Mr. sethi

if you have mentioned all the aforesaid facts what is the stand taken by your wife . ? has she mentioned that she is working or not . .

once she has admitted she is working she wont get maintenance . particularly so in view of your reply that is on record that wife is earning more than you . since you have engaged a lawyer dont worry . he will do all the home work for you rely upon various judgements in support of his case during Arguments that wife not entitled to maintenance

court may call upon her to produce her salary slip .

Delhi high court pass a judgment in 2011 in which clearly held about detail affidavit.

inderjeet vs Puneet kaur

thanks for your appreciation

The legal yardsticks to be applied for judging a claim for interim maintenance and final maintenance are precisely the same. Whether or not the liability for interim maintenance will be attached to the husband or not cannot be told beforehand as this is essentially a matter of fact to be decided by the court after going though the pleadings.

She may be required to produce her salary slip.

If she has herself stated that she is working then this might prove to be the last nail in her coffin as it is coupled with your reply stating that she is earning more than you. She will have to explain as to how does she even qualify to get maintenance if she is herself earning.

Leave the rest to your lawyer as he being a trained legal mind knows how to maneuver the case in court.

All of them.

interim argument will be for interim maintenance only . the issue of compensation , reimbursement of wedding expenses , permanent alimony will be considered by court after trial only .

wife has to lead evidence in support of her case for compensation , wedding expenses etc . that evidence has to be tested under cross examination . only after trial is completed would court pronounce judgement on these issues .

yes your wife can file 498a if she so desires the mere fact that dv case is filed is no bar to filing of 498a case

She can file 498A even if the DV case is pending adjudication before court. This being said, she will have to show as to why she did not file the 498a case earlier in time to DV case.

resolved query

resolved query

Hi, it is better solve the problem amicably.

you must have engaged a local lawyer . let him earn his fees .there are number of judgements on said issue .

Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24/3/2000ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner Mamta Jaiswal has acquired qualification as MSc. M.C. M.Ed,and was working in Gulamnabi Azad. College of Education, Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal(MHS). The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is sub?engineer serving in Pimampur factory.The order which is under challenge by itself shows that Mamta Jaiswal, the wifewas earning Rs. 4,000/? as salary when she was in service in the year 1994. Thehusband Rajesh Jaiswal is getting salary of Rs. 5,852/?. The Matrimonial Courtawarded alimony of Rs. 800/? to Mamta Jaiswal per month as pendente litealimony, Rs. 400/? per month has been awarded to their daughter Ku, DikshaJaiswal. Expenses necessary for litigation has been awarded to the tune of Rs.1,500/?. The Matrimonial Court has directed Rajesh Jaiswal to pay travellingexpenses to Mamta Jaiswal whenever sheattends Court for hearing of themmatrimorial petition pending between them. Matrimonial petition has been filedby husband Rajesh Jaiswal for getting divorce from Mamta Jaiswal on the groundof cruelty. This revision petition arises on account of rejection of the prayermade by Mamta Jaiswal when she prayed that she be awarded the travellingexpenses of one adult attendant who is to come with her for attendingMatrimonial Court. 2. Mr. S.K. Nigam, pointed out that the petition is mixed natured because ifat all it is touching provisions of Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) then that has to be filedwithin a month. Mr. Mev clarified that it is a revision petition mainly meantfor challenging pendente lite alimony payable by the husband in view of Section24 of the Act. He pointed out the calculations of days in obtaining thecertified copies of the impugned order. In view of that, it is hereby declaredthat this revision petition is within limitation, entertainable, keeping in viewthe spirit of the Act and Section 24 of it. 3. A wife is entitled to get pendente lite alimony from the husband in viewof provisions of Section 24 of the Act if she happens to be a person who has noindependent income sufficient for her to support and to make necessary expensesof the proceedings. The present petitioner, the wife, Mamta Jaiswal has made a .prayer that she should be paid travelling expenses of one adult member of herfamily who would be coming to Matrimonial Court at Indore as her attendant.Therefore, the question arises firstly, whether a woman having suchqualifications and once upon a time sufficient income is entitled to claimpendente lite alimony from her husband in a matrimonial petition which has beenfiled against her for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Secondly, whether such awoman is entitled to get the expenses reimbursed from her husband if she bringsone adult attendant alongwith her for attending the Matrimonial Court from theplace where she resides or a distant place. 4. In the present case there has been debate between the spouses about theirrespective income. The husband Rajesh has averred that Mamta is still servingand earning a salary which is sufficient enough to allow her to support herself.Wife Mamta is contending that she is not in service presently. Wife Mamta iscontending that Rajesh, the husband is having salary of Rs. 5,852/? per month.Husband Rajesh is contending that Rs. 2,067/? out his salary, are deductedtowards instalment of repayment of house loan. He has contended that Rs. 1,000/?are spent in his to and fro transport from Indore to Pithampur. He has alsodetailed by contending that Rs. 200/? are being spent for the medicines for hisailing father. And, lastly, he has contended that by taking into considerationthese deductions as meagre amount remains available for his expenditure. 5. It has been submitted that Mamta Jaiswal was getting Rs. 2,000/? as salaryin the year 1994 and she has been removed from the job of lecturer. No further details are available at this stage. Thus, the point is in a arena of counterallegations of these fighting spouses who are eager to peck each other. 6. In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of theAct has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning butchooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his orher expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente litealimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me,Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistanceto such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite ofsincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to getthe service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle tosqueeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her ownpurse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expectthe increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena oflegal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisionsof law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a wellqualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she wasserving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she waspossessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ?It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal withsufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite ofsufficient 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 petitionfiled for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on thehusband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of suchmatrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idlepersons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ’dole’ to be awarded by herhusband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court forseeking a relief against her. The case may be vice verssa also. If a husbandwell qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site idle and puts his burden on thewife 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 soalso does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for thepurpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincereefforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude isnot adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolongsuch litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, oncedear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted toremain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlementsbecause the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the effortsof amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature ofpendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and notbothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself orherself That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectlyagainst healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who inspite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support andmaintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardisingtheir hard earned income by toiling working hours. 7. In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs. 800/? permonth as pendente lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of beingreimbursed from husband whenever she makes a trip to Indore from Pusad, Distt.Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is wellqualified woman once upon time abviously serving as lecturer in EducationCollege. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village ? Needless topoint out that a woman who is educated herself with Master’s degree in Science,Masters Degree in Education,. would not feel herself alone in travelling fromPusad to Indore, when atleast a bus service is available as mode of transport.The sumbission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable anddigestable. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burdenon the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged. In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not makingefforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to bediscouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarellingand coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guidedfor the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore,grant of luxurious, excessive facilities by way of pendente lite alimony andextra expenditure has to be discouraged. Even then, if the spouses do not thinkof amicable settlement, the Matrimonial Courts should dispose of the matrimonialpetitiorisas early as possible. The Matrimonial Courts have to keep it in mindthat the quarells between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of theiroffsprings of such wedlocks. The offsprings do not understand as to where theyshould see ? towards father or towards mother ? By seeing them both fighting,making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderednessand loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on their minds andbrains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to createcomplications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to suchdanger on account of such fighting parents. 9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore,no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petitionstands dismissed. The Matrimonial Court is hereby directed to decide thematrimonial petition which is pending amongst these two spouses as early aspossible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit monthwise report about theprogress of the said matrimonial petition to this Court so as to secure acontinuous, unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs.The amount of pendente lite alimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband RajeshJaiswal should be deposited by him within a month by counting the date from thedate of order. The failure on this aspect would result in dismissal of hismatrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs. 400/? per month to hisdaughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of applicationof her maintenance i.e. 14.5.1998. That has to be also deposited within a month.He may take out sufficient money for that from his savings or take a loan fromsome good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure in this aspect also wouldresult in dismissal of his petition. C

it can be cited . issue is whether wife is working or not . same principle applies .

thanks for your appreciation

argue on facts mentioned by you . no case for alternative accommodation made out as husband wants wife to stay with him . if your lawyer is not prepared seek adjournment as telephonically advised to you today morning . you have paid your lawyer fees let him work hard for his fees .

if wife is earning Rs 80,000 a month then no question of paying maintenance . you should challenge the said order . you will have to pay as per said order for your appeal to be heard on merits