1) you have not mentioned what is your income 2) working wife is not entitled to maintenance 3) since wife is earning decent amount she can maintain herself 4) number of judgments working wife is not entitled to maintain herself
Hi Lawyers, I am working with MNC in Ahmedabad, and my wife earlier working on contact base with the same company and was fetching 16,500/month. She is working since July 2010 and marriage done in December 2013. After marriage till july 2015 she was on contact base job. And then recently since oct 2015 she is on confirmed payroll of the company where I am and verbally confessed that she is fetching 3,50,000 lacs annually, and increment will be given by company. She left home within 4 months or marriage life and She filed section-9 (with HMA-24) in court. So In court judge has asked to continue as per her application in section-9. And when I said I am ready to continue marriage life without any condition, she now put conditions 1) To stay in separate shelter with written security 2) Not willing and ready to stay with my parents by simply mentioning verbal statements that my parents had harassed her. I am the only son of my parents, and my father is senior citizen. She also filed section 125 and asked for 20K for maintenance and 10K for rent. In HMA-24 she asked for 25K under lights pendent act and 75K for medical expenses. Now court has asked to submit payslips from both sides. I need your feedback and suggestion(s), is there any chances that court will grant interim maintenance and permanent maintenance? Thanks
1) you have not mentioned what is your income 2) working wife is not entitled to maintenance 3) since wife is earning decent amount she can maintain herself 4) number of judgments working wife is not entitled to maintain herself
Interim maintenance may be ordered by the court if your wife is able to prove insufficiency of her income for her maintenance and discrepancy between her and your income. The income earned by wife has to be sufficient to defeat her substantive claim.
I am not sure about your income as you are silent on this. Income of the wife is not absolute bar to get maintenance if the income of her husband is manifold more. If your income is around 50K-70k you may avoid maintenance. Else you have to make payment of maintenance.
A Hindu male is legally obligated to maintain his spouse. Maintenance includes provision for food, residence, clothing, education and medical attendance and treatment. The Supreme Court of India has held that no fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. There are various factors that come for the consideration of the court while determining alimony. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a party who has no independent income sufficient for his/her support in proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, having regard to the income of the parties. The Proviso to Section 24 provides that application under Section 24 shall be disposed of within 60 days of the date of service of notice on the opposite party. The courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. A wife who is well qualified and is capable to earn cannot sit idle and claim maintenance from her husband.A wife is not entitled to any allowance if she, without sufficient cause, refuses to live with her husband. Marriage throws an obligation on the wife, to live and co-habit with her husband. Only on reasonable grounds she is justified to live separate from him. Neglect, cruelty, ill treatment, impotency, extra-marital relationship, remarriage are sufficient grounds to justly separate living by a wife. The burden of proving this is on the woman. So filing the counter by using the above grounds.
Hi, As per law if the wife is capable of maintaining herself then she will not entitled for maintenance. In your case wife is earning more than 25,000/- per month so normally court will not grant maintenance to her.
Recently the Mumbai family court rejected the claim of a wife for Maintenance from her husband under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). As per section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act: Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. —Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. The aim of section 24 of the HMA is to provide the weaker spouse with such fund as may be reasonably necessary for her or his support and for the carriage of the litigation and such an order automatically comes to an end with the termination of the main proceeding in the Court which passes the order. The proceeding being rather summary in nature, the object of the order being ad hoc and the duration of the order being temporary, the approach of the Court to such an order should be ut res magis valeat qnam pereat, ( The law should be given effect rather than be destroyed) to sustain it wherever possible and not to interfere unless intervention is irresistible in law. Therefore, the aim is to provide the spouse necessary source of income if the spouse does not have an independent income due to which he/she is unable to maintain themselves. This is a beneficial provision so that the proceedings are not jeopardized for want of funds by either spouse. Social Justice is the driving force for this provision. The object of Section 24 of the HMA is not to bring about financial equality between the spouses. Its object is not to slash some amount from the earnings of the husband and hand it over to the wife so that financial disparities between the two are removed. Its object is only to provide means to the spouse who has no independent source of income to contest the matrimonial proceedings. Likewise fight and challenge her 125 cr.p.c. case too on the basis of merits in your side.
Thanks Everyone. Thanks a lot for you reply. As per some questions from your side I am mentioning in details, and requesting you to provide feedback:- My education qualification: MCA (Masters of Computer) Designation : Software Engineer Monthly Income : 47000 take home, Increment will be given by company base on performance every year. and it may reach to 60K per month (at max) if increment will be there Years of professional experience : 8.5 years Job status : Confirmed Employee (Letter from Employer) My Wife's education qualification: MCA (Masters of Computer) Designation : Software Engineer Monthly Income : 29100 (3,50,000 annually), she also confessed verbally infront of judge that increment will be done. Years of professional experience : 5.5 years Job status : Confirmed Employee (Letter from Employer) Court has asked to submit the payslip. We are getting payslip through email as softcopy and salary gets credited in salary account from company, and I am having doubt that my wife may temper the payslip to show her income low or suppress the authentic and actual income. Is there any so that I can ask court to verify the same? Recently in section-9 filed from her side, conciliation happened bewteen both of us. I wrtittenly mentioned that I am ready to continue without any condition. And She now put conditions 1) To stay in separate shelter with written security 2) Not willing and ready to stay with my parents by simply mentioning verbal statements that my parents had harassed her. In section-9 (with HMA24) sked for 25K under lights pendent act and 75K for medical expenses. In CRPC 125, she asked for 20K per month for maintanance and 10K for rent. But presently she is staying at her father's home and that is mentioned in her applicatoin. now proceeding for CRPC 125 will be done, so now she can ask for more amount per month in court? I have recording from my father-in-law & Brother-in-law, in which he threatened me on call. My wife was taking help from them. will it support to prove in court that they are being very harsh, cruel to me? Also any counter case needed to be file to stop her for getting maintance and harrassing this way? Also can you guys help me to get judgement which I can yank to my case and defend? Thanks
1) you can request court to direct your wife to produce her appointment letter which would mention her income details 2) there is no harm in staying separate with your wife . you can stay on rented flat near your aprents residence and visit your parents daily 3) wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance under section 125 CR Pc . in your case wife is highly qualified software engineer and hence not entitled to maintenance . 4) you should rely on various judgments that working wife is not entitled to any maintenance
HE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ROHINI COURT : DELHI M No. 28/07 Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal – Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal – Respondent ORDER 1.. This is an order on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant/ wife, respondent in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the non-applicant/ husband, petitioner in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) for grant of maintenance pendentelite and for litigation expenses. 2.. In the application it is stated that the applicant/ wife has no independent source of income and she is not given any kind of maintenance by the non-applicant/ husband to live her life properly and therefore she is facing much hardship in the life. The non-applicant/ husband has flatly refused to maintain her. The non-applicant/ husband is working in a private sector as a Senior Software Engineer HPC in STM Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 A, Knowledge Park-2 (near LG Gol Chakkar), Greater Noida and is earning about Rs. 80,000/-pm. He has no other liability and he is not discharging his responsibilities towards the applicant/ wife with ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/ husband and, thus, being a husband, he is bound to maintain the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is fully dependent on the mercy of her parents, who are having other liabilities also and she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It is, therefore, prayed that the non-applicant/ husband be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-pm as maintenance allowance pendentelite to the applicant/ wife and expenses of proceedings. 3.. The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated that the applicant/wife is a well qualified graduate Engineer in the field of information Technology and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome salary as initially she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Now-a-days she is competent and qualified to earn thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/ husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed by her for any purpose in any manner. It is not denied that the non-applicant/ husband is also a qualified engineer and is employed in Greater Noida, U.P. but the actual amount of monthly salary being drawn by him is Rs. 45,000/-pm. It is stated that he has to maintain his retired father and ailing, diabetic mother and old grandmother and also to treat his two married sisters and to look-after his younger unmarried under-education sister of marriageable age as his younger sister is doing B.Ed. from a regular college. He is also paying loan premiums and other household expenses. The applicant/ wife has herself deserted her matrimonial home without any threats or atrocities caused to her by her in-laws and she is not returning to her matrimonial home despite the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the non-applicant/ husband. It is stated that the non-applicant/ husband is publicly and openly as well as warmly welcoming the applicant/ wife to her matrimonial home but she has started demanding maintenance sitting in her parental home to feed her greedy parents and selfish relatives instead of returning to her matrimonial home and to assist the non-applicant/ husband and her other in-laws in her matrimonial home at the time of need. It is stated that the conduct, attitude and nature of the applicant/ wife is of such type that she is not entitled for any maintenance. Further more, she has also filed a separate petition U/s 125Cr. P.C. for maintenance only with a view to get the non-applicant/ husband harassed in a criminal court. It is stated that the applicant/ wife is not a helpless or poor lady and she is not incapable to maintain herself as she is a well qualified engineer and is already an earning hand. She is handing over all her income to her parents. She does not require any monastery assistance from the non-applicant/ husband as she is already having a good bank balance in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Rohini, Sector-5,Delhi , bearing A/c No. 61005521399 and several other bank accounts also. She also has some immovable properties in her name. It is denied that she requires Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance and other charges as prayed. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost. 4.. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record. 5.. During the course of arguments it has not been denied by the Counsel for the applicant/ wife that the applicant/ wife herself is an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife joined the job for some time after the marriage but thereafter due to the marital disputes she is not in a position to pursue her job and has left the same. In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:- “Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition.” 6.. In I (2001) DMC 19 titled Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal Vs. Sanjay Kumar Ratilal Jaiswal, Mehsana, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the wife is entitled for Free Legal Aid and therefore, the Court should keep in mind that wife is entitled for free legal services also. 7.. In the present case the applicant/ wife is a well qualified engineer and, therefore, there is no need for her to sit idle at home waiting for the maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the applicant/ wife is well qualified and, therefore, can earn handsome amount by working and there is no need for her to be financially dependent upon her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance. While hearing arguments on the application it was ordered that the maintenance shall be granted to the wife till the disposal of the petition. This sentence in order sheet dated 27.08.2007 only means that the wife is entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition and not thereafter. It no where reflects that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance I every case come what may. 8.. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the application U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act of the applicant/ wife is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in Open Court Dated : 19.09.2007
n Smt.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
A full copy of the judgment is given below for your reference; There are plenty judgments by various court rejecting maintenance to employed wives. IN THE FAMILY COURT MUMBAI AT BANDRA INTERIM APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2011 IN PETITION NO.A-2283 OF 2010 Sudipta Kumar Sen ... Petitioner Vs. Suvra Sen ... Respondent CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. P. L. PALSINGANKAR DATED : 20 th NOVEMBER, 2012 . ORDER BELOW EXH.15 This is an application for interim maintenance and legal expenses by respondent-wife. Application is opposed by filing reply at Exh.16. I have heard learned Counsels for both side. Following points arise for determination with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow. Points Findings 1. Whether respondent have sufficient independent income for her support and necessary expenses for the proceeding ? Yes. 2. Whether respondent-wife is entitled for interim maintenance ? No. 2 R E A S O N S Points No.1 & 2 :2. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner is drawing annual income of Rs.2 Crores and therefore respondent be awarded interim maintenance of Rs.6,00,000/- per month. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the averment in para No.15 of this application, where respondent has admitted that she earns Rs.24,00,000/- annually. So, it was argued from the side of petitioner that respondent is able to sustain herself and hence not entitled for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was also argued that respondent has left petitioner and daughter to pursue her illicit relationship. It was also submitted that paramour of respondent has died and respondent has engaged herself in a litigation with the widowed wife of her paramour for claiming a property at Bengaluru. It was thus prayed that the application be rejected. 3. When the point of interim maintenance arises, the Court has to decide whether income of the applicant is insufficient to support herself and to support the litigation. In other words applicant has to convince the Court that the requirements of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 exists in her favour. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta reported in AIR 1988, Cal.,98. In this case the Calcutta High Court has tried to define the term “to support”. In para No.4 it is observed that the term “to support” lexically means to 3 supply with necessaries and that supply of necessaries in respect of a person must be suited to his condition in life. In simple words the High Court observed that the position and status of the party must be considered. 5. The respondent relied upon judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Pampa Das Vs. Sanjib Das reported in AIR 2005, Cal. 266. In this case Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has hold that conduct of the party is not a relevant consideration for interim maintenance. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon judgment of our High Court in case of Bijal Parag Dave Vs. Parag Labhashankar Dave reported in 1999 (2) MAH. L.J., 276. In this case our High Court has observed that while considering application for maintenance pendente lite, the only consideration of the Court is inability of the spouse to maintain herself for want of financial means or inadequacy of financial means to maintain at the level of social status of the other spouse from whom interim maintenance is sought and not the misconduct of the applicant spouse. So, our High Court has also underlined the legal position that conduct of the parties is irrelevant. 7. Some documents are filed at Exh.31 from respondent's side. These documents relate to income tax returns of petitioner for the year 2009-2010 onwards till date. For the assessment year 2009-10 the gross total income of petitioner is shown Rs.1,07,97,163/-. For the assessment year 2010-11 petitioner has disclosed his gross total income as Rs.1,49,74,610/-. For the 4 assessment year 2011-12 he has disclosed his gross income as Rs.1,37,22,729/-. So, reliance is placed on these documents to contend that income of husband is far more than income of wife. 8. The respondent has filed additional affidavit at Exh.27 and clarified that her current gross salary is Rs.1,76,000/- and she is employed by Sapphire Human Solution. She has placed on record copy of letter of appointment by the employer, photographs and other relevant documents like copies of Insurance policy. 9. It is a settled legal position that the conduct of the parties is not relevant for deciding the point of interim maintenance. Therefore, whether respondent was in adulterous relationship with her alleged paramour, whether she has engaged herself in a litigation with widowed wife of her paramour are not the relevant considerations at this stage. So, those considerations are not touched in this order. 10. The very purpose of providing Section 24 in the Hindu Marriage Act is to enable a financially weak party to litigate his or her right in the matrimonial courts. The purpose is to put both the parties on similar pedestal, so that the weaker party can have a fair fight in a Court of law. So, such proceedings have a limited purpose of enabling weaker parties to substantiate his/her rights during pendency of proceeding. So, while coming to the Court, the applicant under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act must satisfy the Court that she or he do not have sufficient means to maintain herself/himself to support her/his life and to fight a litigation. From the admitted position, the respondent is earning Rs.24,00,000/- per 5 annum. She has filed additional affidavit in support of her application and contended that she is earning Rs.1,76,000/-. So, from her own words I can believe that she is earning not less than Rs.2 Millions per annum. So, I have posed a question to learned Counsel for the respondent whether a millionaire can make an application for interim maintenance. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that income of husband is far more than the income of the wife. From the income tax statements, no doubt, it appears that the gross annual income of petitioner is more than Rs.1 Crore. So, it was argued that respondent is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs.6,00,000/- per month. 11. The term “income” is an expression of elastic ambit, a word of the broadest connotation, and is difficult to define in any precise general formula. What is a sufficient income in one case may not be a sufficient income in another case. A sufficient maintenance in case of a wife of a common employee may not be a sufficient maintenance to a wife of a Board of Director of a successful company. The question here is can that principle be overstretched to such an extent to include such millionaire wives into the list of beneficiary under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. My answer to that question is in negative. If Family Court starts accepting such pleas even at interim stage under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, then a wrong message will be sent to the society and to litigating public in Family Court. Even a rich lady can engage her husband in such frivolous interim litigations. Here the respondent is earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.24,00,000/- 6 per year. She wants Rs.6,00,000/- as a maintenance from her husband. If that is allowed, then her income would swell to Rs.8,00,000/- per month and that comes to more than Rs.1 Crore annually. From millionaire she wants to become multi-millionaire. This is not permissible in this Court. This is a clearcut abuse of process of law. The maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be for luxuries in the life. Or, otherwise, thee will be no meaning to the term “sufficient to support her life”. If we give a bare look at para No.17 and 18 of her application, then fabulous figures are mentioned. She has claimed Rs.1.5 Lacs per month on account of rent, Rs.52,000/- on Car loan EMI, Over Time of Driver, Petrol and Maintenance of Car, Rs.15,000/- for the Servants, Rs.7000/- for Electricity, Rs.20,000/- for Groceries, Rs.15,000/- for Medicine, Rs.30,000/- for Medical Supervision, Rs.20,000/- for personal care, Rs.25,000/- for personal miscellaneous like social interactions, party, gifts etc., Rs.50,000/- for Credit card payments, Rs.3,00,000/- per month for payment of Pension Plan Premium, Rs.80,000/- per annum for Domestic Air Travels, Rs.5,00,000/- per annum for International Air Travels. All these items are luxury items. These items are not needed for sustenance. She is already earning more than Rs. 2 Millions per annum to maintain her lifestyle. Only because her husband is traveling in a BMW provide by his employer, she cannot extract an interim maintenance order to support that lifestyle. Only because her husband is living in a accommodation provided by his employer at Marine Drive, she cannot extract money for having similar 7 accommodation in Marine Drive. With due respect to the pronouncement of Calcutta High Court in case of Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta reported in AIR 1988, Cal.,98 (referred above), the principle cannot be overstretched in this case to grant Rs.6,00,000/- per month as a maintenance in addition to her own earning of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. So, considering the facts of this case, I am of considered opinion that respondent has abused the process of law by moving an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. That provision is only for those weak spouses, who cannot come to Court and fight a litigation for want of money, that provision is for those spouses who cannot sustain their life with their meager earning. The richy rich spouses cannot explore that provision to get fat maintenance. 12. The claim of alimony implies the assumption that a woman is economically helpless. So, when a party or a spouse come to this Court with an application under Section 24, she must satisfy that she is unable to maintain herself. Despite being the fact that she is a Millionaire (earning more than Rs.2 Millions per annum), she has approached this Court with an application for interim maintenance. The dockets of this Court are overflowing, may be because of such frivolous litigations. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, represented by its President etc., reported in 2012 (2) CCC 145 (SC) has taken a strong view of such frivolous litigation. In para No.216 of it's judgment the Apex Court has sensitized Lower Court that they 8 should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. It is also observed that the Court never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing process of law. In para No.199 of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed that one of the main reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. It is observed that even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. The Supreme Court has underlined the importance of the principle of restitution mens profit and cost in such proceedings. The Apex Court observed that while awarding cost in such cases, the Court must take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic in quantifying the amount of cost. Considering the above legal position, considering the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that this application is nothing but an abuse of process of law by a rich woman who herself is employed and well placed and earns a handsome and fabulous salary to support her cause. She cannot come to the Court to extract luxuries from her husband. The maintenance is for sustenance and not for partying around with the amount extracted from husband. Therefore, the claim of interim maintenance for partying and socializing is nothing but an abuse of process of law. So, I answer both points for consideration accordingly. I am justified in imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- for respondent for moving a frivolous application. This will ensure that a proper signal is sent to the society to litigating class that spouses having sufficient income to support their life should not approach this 9 Court with such frivolous claims. With this I conclude and pass the following order. O R D E R Application stands rejected with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Sd/-20-11-2012 ( P. L. Palsingankar ) Judge 20th November, 2012 Family Court No.3, Mumbai.
1. She can get maintenance only under one provision of law. 2. The recordings can be used in evidence in the court to nail her claim. 3. No counter case is made out.