{"id":3325,"date":"2014-10-06T13:35:00","date_gmt":"2014-10-06T13:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wakilsahab.in\/news\/an-educated-ex-wife-cant-seek-money-from-hubby\/"},"modified":"2014-10-06T13:35:00","modified_gmt":"2014-10-06T13:35:00","slug":"an-educated-ex-wife-cant-seek-money-from-hubby","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wakilsahab.in\/news\/an-educated-ex-wife-cant-seek-money-from-hubby\/","title":{"rendered":"An educated ex-wife can’t seek money from hubby"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rejecting a woman’s plea for maintenance from her estranged husband, metropolitan magistrate Pooja Talwar said: “The complainant is a well-educated lady who had been earning approximately Rs 50,000 per month from her last job. If she has chosen not to work… she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own deed.” <\/p>\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The court, which passed its order in favour of respondent Indermeet Singh, agreed with the submissions of defence counsel Tarun Goomber who said having capacity to work and not working falls under the maxim of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that “no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself”. “The gist of all the judgments filed by the respondent’s counsel is that when the complainant is an able bodied person having capacity to earn and has actually been earning in the past is not entitled to receive any maintenance. When she could sustain herself by earning a handsome salary in the past, she would be able to get a job if she earnestly tries to search for one now,” Talwar said.<\/p>\n

The complainant, Daman Reet Kaur, had filed a case seeking interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. She alleged that she had been subjected to various forms of torture by her husband Indermeet, an employee with a Noida- based software company who draws an annual salary of Rs 20 lakh. She further claimed that her husband had an extra income of a few lakh rupees from a part-time computer business.<\/p>\n

Daman Reet applied for maintenance, claiming that “she is facing extreme hardship as she was enjoying a lavish lifestyle, and therefore needs a suitable maintenance for food, clothing, residence apart from other basic necessities…” The defence counsel produced pay slips of the woman’s salary before the court that proved that she was earning more than Rs 50,000 per month, which is sufficient to sustain her. However, for the child’s maintenance, Indermeet’s counsel claimed that the father was himself willing to bear the child’s expenses.<\/p>\n

The court, however, refrained from commenting on the subject, saying that the present application only seeks maintenance for the woman and not the child.<\/p>\n

“Since the respondent has conceded to the fact that he is ready to maintain the child, he can do so voluntarily of his own accord,” the court added.<\/p>\n

Coming back to the woman’s maintenance, the court said even if she is not earning anything at present, she is not eligible for it.<\/p>\n

“The situation today is that she is not earning and that she has no money to sustain herself, but then it cannot be denied that she is in a capacity to work and with earnest effort she shall be able to search a suitable job for herself,” the court said.

Not eligible for relief<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • According to Section 125 of the CrPC ( that deals with maintenance of wives), a person is liable to pay maintenance to his wife who is unable to maintain herself<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The complainant was earning Rs 50,000 per month from her last job<\/p>\n

    She alleged that she was subjected to various forms for torture by her husband and sought maintenance from him<\/p>\n

    Defence counsel said having capacity to work and not working falls under the maxim of Anglo- Saxon jurisprudence that “no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself”<\/p>\n

    The court said since she is capable of earning a livelihood, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance <\/p><\/div>\n

    \n\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t