Wife’s employment alone cannot be a ground for rejection of maintenance: High Court of Delhi
When a case of marital discord is brought before the court and the suit has been filed for calculation of maintenance to be given by the husband to the wife, the contention that the wife is already employed cannot be used to deny her maintenance. This was decided in the case of Pooja v. Sanjay Chopra [CRL.M.C. 1992/2020 &amp; Crl.M.A. 14264/2020] in the High Court of Delhi by single bench consisting of Hon’ble Judge Suresh Kumar Kait. The background of the case is that the parties got married as per Hindu Rites. It was a second marriage for both the parties. However, due temperamental differences, the parties started living separately within three months of their marriage the wife filed a complaint against the husband and his family alleging domestic violence. In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the wife filed an application seeking interim maintenance and the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance @Rs.25,000/- per month. The husband filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate and placed his income affidavit, income tax returns and bank statement on record and taking the said documents into consideration, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application of wife for interim maintenance. In the appeal filed before the court of Sessions, it was observed that husband is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and thereby, fixed interim maintenance @Rs.7,500/- per month for the wife, which she claims to be on the lower side. In this court, the wife has pleaded that the Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that wife is only 9th class pass and was then jobless and hence, unable to maintain herself and her son and that she lost her job recently. On the other hand, husband has pleaded that the wife has left the matrimonial home of her own will and has roped him in various false and baseless cases. He has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the wife studied till class 9th, but as per her own statement she is earning Rs.6,000/- per month. and her assertion that she has to spend Rs.3,000/- for day care of the son is also ruled out, as she herself has admitted that she is unemployed. The court relied upon the judgement of Supreme court in in Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 has observed as under:- “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 court further noted that that there is nothing on record to show that she had been working on regular basis nor any intention has been established to show that she was not willing to work further. Keeping this view in mind coupled with the fact that the wife had studied only up to class 9th, it said that the Appellate Court had rightly rejected the finding returned by the Metropolitan Magistrate that the wife has failed to disclose her employment or that she has not made efforts for reemployment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 08.02.2021 Pronounced on: 22.02.2021 CRL.REV.P. 298 2020 SAMINA & ORS. Through: Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi Advocate Petitioners SYED ASIM PASHA Through: Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra Advocate Respondent CRL.REV.P. 17 2021 & Crl.M.A. 767 68 2021 SYED ASHIM PASHA Through: Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra Advocate Petitioner STATE NCT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Chadha Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT The order impugned in both the petitions is dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Karkardooma Courts Delhi vide which petitioner husband Syed Hashim Pasha has been directed to pay maintenance to petitioners wife & two daughters Samina & Ors.7 SCC 7 and decisions of this Court in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahender Kumar Sharma 217DLT 709 and Radhika Vs. Vineet Rungta 110 DLT 111 and observed that parties in matrimonial disputes always try to mislead the court and furnish incomplete details and conceal the true facts specifically with regard to employment and Crl. Rev. P. 298 2020 & Crl.Rev. P.17 2021 income and that the courts have to resort to the status and life style of parties for fixing the maintenance. 10. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 does find mention of affidavits of income and expenditure of both the sides but is silent about furnishing of copies of income tax returns salary receipt or even bank statement of the parties. In the absence of documentary evidence on record the only option left with the trial court is to determine maintenance keeping in mind the totality of circumstances. Neither of the party brought any document on record to establish their case. The husband has failed to bring on record any proof with regard to employment of the wife. Similarly wife has failed to prove that husband is earning a handsome amount however she seeks maintenance. Both the parties did not reach the court with clean hands and have not disclosed true facts with regard to their income and expenditure as observed by the court below. In the aforesaid view of the matter I find that the amount of maintenance fixed by the trial court is just and proper and does not call for 12. The above captioned petitions and pending applications are any interference. accordingly dismissed. Crl. Rev. P. 298 2020 & Crl.Rev. P.17 2021 13. The judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith. FEBRUARY 22 2021 SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE Crl. Rev. P. 298 2020 & Crl.Rev. P.17 2021 