I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the auto-rikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected.
2. The appellant was formerly earning his living by running an auto-rikshaw on hire. He has stopped that work. The respondent is said to be working as a nurse in hospital. The learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant was incapable of earning his living.
3. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the auto-rikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.
4. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal. It deserves to be dismissed at the admission and is hereby dismissed.
Print Page
Rajasthan High Court
Govind Singh vs Smt. Vidya on 21 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 Raj 304, II (2000) DMC 693, 1999 (3) WLC 376
JUDGMENT1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected.
2. The appellant was formerly earning his living by running an auto-rikshaw on hire. He has stopped that work. The respondent is said to be working as a nurse in hospital. The learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant was incapable of earning his living.
3. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the auto-rikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.
4. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal. It deserves to be dismissed at the admission and is hereby dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment