Law Not To Create Army Of Idle People: Court Rejects Maintenance Appeal

Observing that the law for providing maintenance to a spouse is not meant to create an army of idle people waiting for a dole by the estranged partner, the Delhi High Court Tuesday refused to direct a man to pay maintenance to his wife who is herself earning.

The high court said in addition to being qualified, the woman was working.

“No doubt there is a difference between ‘capacity' and ‘actual earning', but here it is not a case where the appellant (woman) had only the capacity but the document on record clearly point out that she has also been working,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The high court dismissed the woman's appeal challenging a family court's order by which her plea seeking maintenance from her estranged husband was declined.

The bench referred to a previous judgment of another high court in which was observed that Section 24 (Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to either spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts.

Maintenance pendente lite provides for the claimant spouse's support as well as the costs of the case.

“However, the law does not expect persons engaged in the legal battles to remain idle solely with the objective of squeezing out money from the opposite party. Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse,” the bench noted as being said in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

In this case, the woman sought an interim maintenance of Rs 35,000 per month in addition to litigation expenses of Rs 55,000.

The high court noted that the woman was an M.Phil at the time of her marriage and now she held a Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in computers and was also working, whereas the man is a simple graduate.

It said not only is the woman highly qualified but had been working even at the time of her marriage.

“The principal judge, family court has rightly observed that the appellant (woman) had initially failed to disclose that she was working even if not regularly or for charity as claimed by her. She had failed to disclose any of these facts and was compelled to do so after the filing of the application … It was also observed by the principal judge, family court that it is difficult to accept that a person who is so highly qualified would not be working and it is even more difficult to accept that she would be working for charity,” the high court said.

It added the documents and the admissions made by the woman clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is employed in the office of a legislator.

“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant (woman) is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.

"Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed,” the bench said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)