Whether earning wife is entitled to get interim maintenance U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

 By application (Exh-14), the petitioner submitted that she was

unable to maintain herself since the couple has separated in the year 2016. She has been residing with her parents. She is unable to work because of the psychological pressure and harassment meted out to her by the respondent.

As against this, the respondent is a Medical Officer earning around Rs.60,000/- to Rs.65,000/- salary. No-one is dependent on him and therefore, she claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and also claimed Rs.200/- for rickshaw fare for attending the Court for each date and Rs.25,000/- for engaging Advocate.

5. The respondent-husband opposed the application by his say

(Exh-19). He contended that the petitioner is also a doctor by profession and is also a Dermatologist. She was also earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. She has continued her profession in a flat owned by her father. He denied that she was suffering from any psychological pressure and was unable to pursue her profession. He denied that he earns Rs.60,000/- to

Rs.65,000/- per month and prayed to reject the application.

6. After hearing both the sides, the learned Judge of the Family

Court rejected the application (Exh-14). Hence this petition.

7. Mr. Warma, learned Advocate, by referring to the recent

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr.;

Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020, decided on 04.11.2020, submitted that the

Supreme Court has now laid down several guidelines and directions in the

matters of grant of maintenance/alimony, including interim maintenance,

awardable under different Statutes. He would point out that assuming that

that the petitioner is a duly qualified medical practitioner, still she is entitled

to claim interim alimony as has been laid down in this decision of the

Supreme Court. Her capacity to earn her livelihood cannot come in her way

to claim alimony. As against this, the respondent is also a Medical Officer

regularly earning sumptuous salary. The learned Judge of the Family Court

has grossly erred in appreciating the law and the facts and has illegally

refused interim alimony, which order may be reversed.

8. Mr. A.M. Gholap, learned Advocate for the respondent strongly

opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioner has not come with

clean hands and has hidden that she is pursuing medical profession. The

record was produced before the Family Court to that effect and no error is committed by the learned Judge in refusing interim alimony to her.

9. As far as right of a wife, who is capable of earning, to claim

alimony is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has

considered it in clause (c) of Part-III under the head of `Criteria for

determining quantum of maintenance’, which reads thus :-

“(c) Where wife is earning some income

The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it

cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the

husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the

following judgments.

In Shailaja & Anr. V Khobbanna, this Court held that

merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a

sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the

Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income

of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in

accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial

home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to

mean mere survival.

In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. V Anil Kachwaha, the

wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher

in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife

had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance

from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention,

and held that merely because the wife was earning some income,

it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v

Kalyani Sanjay Kale while relying upon the judgment in Sunita

Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn,

nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is

sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be

capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and

children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn

sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High

Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander

Prakaash. The onus is on the husband to establish with

necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that

he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal

obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does

not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse

inference may be drawn by the Court.

This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan

cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval,

and held that the obligation of the husband to provide

maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.”

10. Suffice for the purpose, therefore, to conclude that even if the

petitioner in the matter in hand is a medical practitioner and is earning something for her livelihood, it cannot be a ground to refuse alimony to her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4014 OF 2019

Arpana Vijay Manore Vs Dr. Vijay Tukaram Manore,

Print Page

Whether husband can prove that wife is earning income by filing photograph showing her presence at beauty parlour?

The claim of the petitioner that the first respondent is earning her livelihood from work in a parlour is founded on some photographs showing her presence at a certain place. This, to say the least, is not sufficient evidence to show that she has regular income sufficient to maintain herself and the minor daughter of the parties. The denial of this on the part of the respondents cannot be disbelieved at this stage, the burden being of the petitioner to prove his contentions by better proof.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before R.K. Gauba, J.)

Khem Chand  v. Bhagwati alias Laxmi

Crl. M.C. 812/2016 & Crl.M.A. 3423/2016

Decided on January 22, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6776

Print Page

Whether maintenance granted to wife can be reduced if she is capable of earning?

We are not satisfied with the order passed by the High Court considering the income of the Respondent - husband, which we have been told, is more than Rs. 80,000/- per month since the Respondent - husband is a Senior Lecturer in a college. It is stated by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent - husband is also the owner of 26 acres of irrigated land.

7. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the Appellant No. 1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the Appellant No. 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the Appellant No. 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2017 (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos. 6025-6026 of 2013)

Decided On: 18.01.2017

 Shailja Vs.  Khobbanna

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 4 SCC 501

Print Page

Whether court can reduce maintenance on ground that wife is capable of earning?

That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the appellant No. 1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the appellant No. 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the appellant No. 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)

Shailja & Anr.

v.

Khobbanna 

Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 269,AIR 2017 SC 1174

Print Page

Whether wife can be denied maintenance on ground that she is earning more?

It is undisputed position of the case that the parties performed marriage on 10.10.1999 and two children one son and a daughter born out of their wedlock have been residing with the respondent - wife. The respondent - wife is working as a teacher in a government school and the petitioner - husband is working in the office of S.P. Kandi Township. The wife is drawing salary more than the husband and there is difference of approximately Rs. 10,000/- in the gross emoluments of the wife viz-a-viz that of the husband. As per the settled position in law, the wife is entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been had she been staying in the matrimonial home. Taking into consideration prices of daily necessities of life, expenses on education of the children who have to meet the challenges of the society and face peer pressure, I find it difficult to accept contention of the petitioner that maintenance pendente lite assessed by the Court below is on higher side and requires reduction.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

(Before Rekha Mittal, J.)

Amit Kumar v. Navjot Dubey 

CR No. 6198 of 2013

Decided on December 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 12523

Print Page

Whether husband can prove that wife is earning without adducing evidence in that regard?

 In   the   instant   case,   though   there   are
assertions and counter assertions, the Petitioner husband has not placed on
record   any   material  to   indicate   the  income  of  the   Respondent  No.2   as  a
practicing Advocate. This was necessary to be placed in view of the fact that it
is the case of the Petitioner husband that the Respondent No.2 is capable of
earning for herself. It is required to be noted that on the basis of facts which
are on record without there being any evidence produced in support of the
said   facts,   the   matter   cannot   be   approached   by   a   process   of   drawing
inferences. As indicated above it was the endeavour of the Learned Counsel for
the Petitioner to pursue this Court to draw a inference from the facts on record
namely that the Petitioner is an Advocate practicing in the High Court and that
she has an office in Borivali. The second set of facts is that the Respondent
No.2 was wearing some jewellery when she was present in Court on the date
of hearing. I am afraid that by a process of drawing inference, the income of
the Respondent No.2 cannot be presumed. It has come on record that though
the Respondent No.2 is an Advocate practicing in High Court and having office
at Borivali which addressed is found on her letter head. The Respondent No.2

is involved in prosecuting her own personal case, even notices which are on
the letter head of the Respondent No.2 if read show that it relates to her own
case and not those of her clients. It was therefore necessary for the Petitioner
to produce cogent material to indicate the income of the Respondent No.2.
The Trial Court in the absence of any such material by observing that it is the
obligation of the Petitioner to provide for the shortfall, has fixed the interim
maintenance @ Rs.4000/­ 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1572 OF 2015 
Deepak Laxminarayan Verma 
Vs.
  The State of Maharashtra  
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE   : 1st APRIL, 2016
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4846

Print Page

Whether maintenance can be refused to wife on ground that she is earning?

The only reason assigned by the Courts below for not
awarding any amount of maintenance to the wife is that she being a Notary
Public had a good income and if she is earning, then the husband should not be
fastened with the liability of maintaining his wife.  In my view, both the Courts
below have committed a serious error of law resulting in  miscarriage of justice.

The wife may be earning in thousands, but that would not absolve the husband
from his legal liability to maintain his wife. 
7.   The Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena,
reported in 2014 Criminal Law Journal 3979  observed as under:­
"3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the
reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can
be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if
they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from
grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled
in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the
house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play,
and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become
a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard
being   had  to   the  solemn  pledge  at  the   time   of  marriage  and   also   in
consonance   with   the   statutory   law   that   governs   the   field,   it   is   the
obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute,
a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is
compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is
totally   impermissible.   In   fact,   it   is   the   sacrosanct   duty   to   render   the
financial  support even if the husband is required to earn money with
physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there
is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
It shall be open for both the parties
to put forward all contentions available in law, except the contention that the wife is
earning. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 18957 of 2015
WITH
 SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1072 of 2012

SIMABEN MAHESHBHAI SONI
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 21/10/2015

Print Page

Whether unemployed husband is bound to pay maintenance to earning wife?

 In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the
judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash
Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [AIR 1968 Delhi 174]
wherein it has been opined thus:-
“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be
heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is
for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent
grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his
control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not
disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against him.”
22. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is absolutely
clear that once the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of
earning sufficient money, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife.

23. It has to be remembered that when the woman leaves
the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived
of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes,
she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling
that her fearless courage has brought her misfortune. At this stage,
the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is
bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm
for which she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the
lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. [ Ref: Shamima
Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (supra)].
24. The learned counsel for the husband has vehemently
argued that the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the
wife is earning Rs.9,000/- by taking her income only to be Rs.5000/-.
I am afraid that such contention is belied from the records as the
learned appellate court has duly taken into consideration the fact that
the wife was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and Cr.
Revision No. 369 of 2014.

Date of decision: 1.6.2015.

Vipul Lakhanpal  Vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma 


Coram
 Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.


Citation; 2015 CRLJ 3451HP

Print Page

Whether wife can be denied maintenance on ground that she earning some money?

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 
that it is established on record that respondent no.1 is working 
as Bidi Mazdoor and earns Rs.50/­ per day.  To deny the legal 
right of the wife of her maintenance from her husband on such 
plea is nothing but rubbing salt on the wound.  The petitioner is 
not taking care of his son.  There is nothing on record to show 
that the petitioner is incurring any expenses required for his son 
for his educational purpose.  Respondent no.1 is at the mercy of 
her parents.  She is required to take shelter there along with her 
son.   Therefore, if for sustenance she is having some meagre 
amount of Rs.50/­ that by itself does not disentitle her to claim 
maintenance from her husband. The wife is entitled to lead her 
life commensurate with the life of her husband.  It is established 
on record that the petitioner is running business of supplying the 
building material.   Therefore, merely because respondent no.1 

is earning Rs.50/­ cannot be the ground to throw her case out of 
court.  Further, the son, who is taking education is also entitled 
to be maintained at the hands of his father/petitioner.  Hence, I 
see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts 
below. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  230 OF 2001
        

 Hanumant s/o Ramji Pindewad,
Vs
Sow. Anita w/o Hanmant Pindewad,
   age 28 years, occ. Household,

CORAM  :    V.M.DESHPANDE,  J.
DATED   :    9th July, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)1513

Print Page