NO maintenance if there was NO DV, and No DV if there was no domestic relationship
“…12…. the applicant has miserably failed to prove on record allegation of cruelty and illegal demand of dowry articles. Further it is also an establish fact on record that the applicant is not residing with the respondents. Neetu Jain while appearing as PW1 clearly admitted in her cross examination that she is not willing to go to the house of the respondents and that she could only think of that after seeing the residence of the respondents. Similar admission was made by PW3 Rita Jain who also stated that she cannot send her daughter to her in laws house provided the financial condition of her in-laws is better. Now in the present case, it has been contended by the applicant that she is entitled to maintenance to the tune of 50,000/- from the ? respondents as he is running a factory under the name and style of M/s V. Jain Fabrics and is earning more than 2,00,000/- per ? month. However, after hearing the contentions of counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent and after going through the entire material placed on record, this court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to any such maintenance amount. n the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was treated with cruelty and persistent demand of dowry articles was made and due to all these factors she had reasonable ground for not residing with the respondents. In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove as to why she is residing out of her matrimonial home. The allegations of cruelty leveled against the respondents are not proved on record. Therefore, merely alleging that the financial condition of the respondents is not good and thereafter she cannot reside with the respondents is no ground at all for staying away from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove any just and sufficient ground for her living separately and is accordingly, not entitled to maintenance …..”
Link : http://bit.ly/1NWDcXk
***********
Wife already divorced in USA gets 50,000 p.m. maint under DV, from lower court. Delhi HC <b>dismisses</b> usurious maint
“….11. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition under Section 12, there must exist a domestic relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, the Court of MM cannot pass an order against such a person ….”
“….29. I consider that the decree of divorce granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA where husband and wife lived together for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a child could not be ignored and it could not be said that domestic relationship of the wife continued with her husband in New Jersey or her in-laws living at Panipat.
30. The learned MM and learned ASJ committed jurisdictional error by assuming jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act, in view of admitted fact that the wife had all along, before filing the petition under Domestic Violence Act, lived with her husband in USA. Her shared household had been in USA, her husband was still living in USA the child was born in USA. ..”
Link : http://bit.ly/1NNAR5o
***********
I want 1lakh, 2lakhs, 3lakhs, 5lakhs, why ..becaz I’m wife.. I won’t give reasons. Delhi HC dismisses wife’s petition
Wife claims usurious amounts without any reason. Seems to be a VERY short marriage and the woman gets 6000 p.m. maintenance as well. she goes on to file 498a and DV. she asks 1 lakhs, 3 lakhs, 5 lakhs etc without giving any reasons. Delhi HC dismisses wife’s petition
Link : http://bit.ly/1lFfd96
***********
Rented property vacated by husband is NOT a shared household ! Wife has no rights to reside there !! Chennai HC
A typical Second marriage scenario un folded !! “….. the petitioner realized soon after marriage that the second respondent had no qualms about abusing anyone and the law for personal aggrandizement and gain, as both of them had two failed marriages behind them and he was very fond of his sons and wanted to ensure that they had a stable and secure life, he had striven hand to make the marriage work…..”
and this wife squats in the rented property provided by the husband’s employer and does NOT leave that place “…..11.Extending the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, this Court holds that no claim for “shared household” can be made in respect of property of which neither the petitioner husband nor the respondent wife had a right of tenancy. The tenancy right was that obtained by the employer company for the benefit of its employee viz., the petitioner herein and on his being shifted to Delhi, the employer company has found no need to continue the tenancy and accordingly, the same had been brought to an end. If claims for “shared household” are countenanced in circumstances such as those that present themselves in the present case, the harm that would flow to an owner of property, who has nothing to do with the dispute between the husband and wife, hardly needs to be emphasized. The impleaded third respondent has a right to evict the respondent wife and it is so ordered. As the respondent wife will not be a “tenant”, within the meaning of the Rent Control law, the remedy of the third respondent would be one of eviction under the general law……”
Link : http://bit.ly/1mhO2Be
***********
DV Act does not create any additional rights for the wife or for alimony: Delhi High Court
“…..4. A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. It only enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws. While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the duties of wife. Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife…..”
Link : http://bit.ly/1lXsiKB
***********
Deserting wife NOT entitled to maint us 125 CrPC. NOT entitled after divorce also! Bombay HC
Where the husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife had failed to comply with the said decree resulting in the husband obtaining a decree for divorce, the application for maintenance made by the wife was liable to be rejected as not maintainable !!!
Link : http://bit.ly/1MadRIn
***********
On a slightly tangential note
refusing sex, suicide threats, ill-treating indifferent attitude to husband’s relatives, All cruelty. Delhi HC
* Husband and wife are doctors
* Wife says she is un interested in the marriage right from the very beginning
* Wife abstains from sex even during honey moon, has to be coaxed, cajoled etc to have sex
* she refuses to live with her husband, refuses to take part in Diwali Puja and continues to live at her parents place
* She threatens of suicide on the day of the husband’s brother’s engagement and creates a big scene of trying to jump from the house balcony ; She refuses to attend to her father in law when father in law is operated upon, and bedridden ;
* In addition to above she tries to force the husband to move away from his parents and live at her place; All above acts are decreed as cruelty by the lower court and confirmed by Delhi HC
Link : http://bit.ly/1QcWDC8
***********
Wife earning 54K claims additional 25K for same standard of living. Cal HC says NOT entitled 2 maintenance ! (sec 24 HMA case)
“….This Court, therefore, does not find that the income which the petitioner has from her service in Life Insurance Corporation of India is too low to maintain the status and position in the society and, therefore, the trial Court in my view has not committed any wrong in rejection the said application….”
Link : http://bit.ly/1Op9laI
***********
Maintenance not to punish past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy. Should Be established that wife was unable 2 maintain self !! Supreme court of India
One more Cornerstone case where the Hon Apex Court clarifies that wife’s means or inability to maintain herself has to be proven for her to get maintenance and maintenance is NOT to punish the husband !! Of course, such “means” the wife has should NOT be desperate means like begging
Quoting the honourable Apex court :
* “…. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support…..”
* “…. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. ….”
* “…. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself……”
* “…. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. . It is has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself……”
* “….The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. …..”
Link : http://bit.ly/1Mae7qO
***********
DV on in laws 5yrs aftr hubby’s death!! Wife wants piece of house !! Hon Delhi HC sets aside lower court orders & sends ablaa back !! Classic discussion on domestic relationship and when such relationship should have subsisted
Link : http://bit.ly/1O2HOSj
Mumbai family court denies maintenance under HMA 24 to MBA qualified HR professional wife
Video of 498A woman Manju Agarwal acting like a wild beast trying to bite husband
Some useful govt Websites
About Author
