Useful SC and HC Judgments to help you to deny maintenance to a Qualified wife

Useful SC and HC Judgments to help you to deny maintenance to a Qualified wife

Important Guidelines/Remark by of Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts etc. for Maintenance Cases
Sr. No.	Case    /           Law Description	Petition            Result  / Description	Judgment Extract / Law Description / Hon'ble Court's Guideline
1	Section 125 (1) (a) Cr.PC 1973	-	Cr.PC Section 125:- Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- his wife, UNABLE TO MAINTAIN herself,

2	Section 125 (4) Cr.PC 1973	-	Cr.PC Section 125:- Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASON, SHE REFUSES TO LIVE WITH HER HUSBAND, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
3	Manmohan Singh v/s. Mahindra         Kaur, Allahbad High Court, Justice B.N.Katju Equi.            citation:            1976 Cri LJ 1664	No maintenance to wife.	The      Hon'ble            High     Court helds that "Under Cr.PC 1973                        Section                        125(1)(a), MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE                         CANNOT BE GRANTED TO EVERY WIFE who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her BUT CAN ONLY BE GRANTED TO A WIFE WHO IS INDEED UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF."

4

Swastika         Sen      v/s. The state of Bengal Calcutta High Court Citation Author:- M.K. Basu (2003) 2 CALLT 359 HC,I (2004) DMC 66

No maintenance to wife.

The Hon'ble High Court helds that "Under Cr.PC Section 125(1)(a) clearly provides that maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is indeed unable to maintain herself. This is the clear dictate of the law and a departure therefore cannot be permissible. Otherwise, the expression, "if she is unable to maintain herself' would lose all its meanings.

5

Section 101, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

-

"THE PROOF OF BURDEN RESTS ON WHO ASSERTS OR ALLEGES, NOT ON WHO DENIES." Burden of proof:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those  facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

6

The burden of proof rests on WIFE who is making allegation on her husband to prove husband's cruelty/refusal to maintain her. The onus lies solely on the complainant (Wife) to substantiate these allegations by leading cogent evidence in this regard. When wife is making allegation or accusing on character of husband and for prosecution , it is her responsibility to prove her allegation with congent evidence.

7	Bhagirath vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975 [The same was reiterated in Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 464 (Del) ]		"THE PROOF OF BURDEN RESTS ON WHO ASSERTS OR ALLEGES, NOT ON WHO DENIES." What to be proved by prosecution, is well settled that the prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defense. Nor can the court on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis.
8	1971    AIR      1162    : [1971] 1           S.C.R 399, N. Sri Rama Reddy v/s. V.V.Giri	-	TAPE  RECORDED CONVERSIONS ARE VALID EVIDENCE. Tape recorded conversions can be used to contradict the evidence given before the court and to test the veracity of the witness.

9	AIR 1983 SC 1015 The Welcome Hotel v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh	-	The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "A PARTY WHICH HAS MISLED THE COURT In Passing An Order In Its Favor IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON ITS MERITS OF THE CASE."
			The      Hon'ble            Supreme
			Court   helds    that      "the
			petitioner approaching the
			Writ Court must come with
			clean   hands  and      put
			forward all the facts before
	(2008) 12 SCC 481		the       Court   without
	K.D.Sharma v/s SAIL		concealing or suppressing
	&          Others,            Hon'ble		anything          and      seek    an
	Supreme Court		appropriate      relief.   IF
10	(The     rule      was      also reiterated         in         G.	-	THERE           IS         NO            CANDID DISCLOSURE            OF
	Jayshree         vs.		RELEVANT    AND
	Bhagwandas S. Patel		MATERIAL FACTS or THE
	and others (2009) 3		PETITIONER  IS         GUILTY
	SCC 141.)		OF       MISLEADING THE
			COURT,          HIS      PETITION
			MAY BE DISMISSED AT
			THE     THRESHOLD
			WITHOUT CONSIDERING
			THE     MERITS          OF       THE
			CLAIM.

11

Dalip Singh v/s. State of UP Civil     Appeal no. 5239/2002 Justice:- G.S.Sanghvi,            Asok Kumar Ganguly Hon'ble            Supreme Court

Appeal / Application is dismissed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "The effort of a party who misleads the court, can be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of person who not only attempt but succeed in polluting the course of Justice. They should be saddled with EXEMPLARY COST." The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "A party which has misled the court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on its merits of the case."

12			In Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh, 2012 (129) DRJ 128, the Division Bench of this Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. observed that "The Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and  such litigants are consuming Court's time for a wrong cause."
13	Rohtash Singh v/s. Ramendri (Smt) on dt. 2.3.2000, Justice S. Saghir Ahmed 2000            (2)        R.C.R (Criminal) 286	-	The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "A WIFE IS NOT ENTITLED to MAINTENANCE WHO HAS DESERTED HER HUSBAND." Equivalent       Citation:           AIR 2000   SC   952,   2000 (2) ALD   Cri   15,   2000 CriLJ 1498 Bench:-           S          Ahmed,            D. Wadhwa

14	Punjab -           Haryana High Court Justice V.         S. Sirpurkar	-	The LAW did not allow maintenance in cases where the wife deserted her husband and left the matrimonial home. No maintenance to wife if wife lies or deserts her husband.
15	Ran Singh and Anr v/s. State of Haryana, Cri. Appeal no. 222/2008, Bench:- Dr. Arjijt Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Hon'ble Supreme Court (Also:- Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, Bench: K.T.Thomas & S.N.Variava (2001 (8) SCC 633))	Gifrs/Presents given at marriage time CAN'T DEEM AS DOWRY	The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "Any PRESENTS/GIFTS made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of PWADV Act, 2005" The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression "dowry".

16	(2012) 7 SCC 288 Vishwanath Agrawal v/s. Sau. Sarla Agrawal, Civil Appeal no. 4905/2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court	-	FALSELY ACCUSING HUSBAND IS CRUELTY The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "She (wife) had made an effort to prosecute him in criminal litigations which she had failed to prove. ... The cruel behaviour of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her."
17			The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "It has been opined that a conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot be so lightly ignored or brushed aside."

			The      act       of         filing     false
			criminal           prosecution     is
18	(2013) 5 SCC 226 K.Srinivas        Rao     vs. D.A.Deepa Hon'ble            Supreme Court	-	sufficient to hold that the Husband was treated with cruelty by the wife. ... If a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse, it    would    invariably  and
			indisputably     constitute
			matrimonial cruelty."

19

The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "FALSE AND            DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE PLEADINGS CAN ALSO CAUSE MENTAL CRUELTY"... "Making unfounded       indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."

20

Sunita  v/s.      Susil kumar FAO-M-414 of 2014 (O&M) Punjab haryana High Court Justice:- Ajay Kumar Mittal

Application      is Rejected. No maintenance to wife.

The Hon'ble High Court helds that "The act of filing false criminal prosecution is sufficient to hold that the respondent was treated with cruelty by the appellant." The Supreme Court in K.Srinivas Rao vs. D.A.Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 held that "If a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse, it would invariably and indisputably constitute matrimonial cruelty."

21                     22

Fauzia Iftikhar v/s. Ameer Hamza CR       no.19/12, Karmardooma Court, DELHI Justice Sh.       J.R. Aryan

Application      is Rejected. No maintenance to wife.

The Hon'ble court helds that "Impugned order suffers illegality in recording even a prima facie findings that PETITIONER/WIFE HAD FAILED TO FULFILL HER MATRIMONIAL OBLIGATIONS or that the RESPONDENT/HUSBAND HAD NOT WILFULLY NEGLECTED            TO MAINTAIN HER." NO ALIMONY TO  WOMEN WHO HAVE DESERTED    HER HUSBAND OR FAILED TO PROVE           THE ALLEGATION.

23	Narendra         v/s.      K. Meena Civil     Appeal no. 3253/2008 Justice:-          Anil      R. Dave Hon'ble            Supreme Court	Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.	FORCING HUSBAND TO GET SEPARATED FROM HIS            PARENTS, AMOUNTS TO CRUELTY. The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that " It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. ... The persistent effort of the respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband."
			The Hon'ble Supreme Court also helds that "TO SUFFER         AN ALLEGATION PERTAINING TO            ONE’S CHARACTER OF HAVING AN   EXTRA-MARITAL AFFAIR                       IS                                 QUITE TORTUROUS                        FOR            ANY PERSON."

24

Ritu Raj Kant v. Anita CM(M)            No. 1790/2006 Delhi High Court Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra

Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.

BALD ALLEGATION OF INCOME OF HUSBAND IS NOT TENABLE IN MAINTENANCE LAW The Hon'ble High Court helds that            "The maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earnings of a person and not on his being able bodied person. ... The wife is equally able bodied. The wife has failed to show, in this case, any earning of the husband. ... The order of maintenance is not tenable on the ground that the husband was an able bodied person."

25

Poonam          v/s. Mahendra K. Cri.      Misc.   No.      M- 24684/2008 Punjab -           Haryana High Court Justice Mohinder Pal

-

The Hon'ble High Court helds that "The petitioner- wife has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent-Husband or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Failure of the petioner to prove sufficient ground justifying her decision to stay away from the respondent and matrimonial home shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord." A           WIFE     IS    NOT ENTITLED      to MAINTENANCE WHO HAS DESERTED HER HUSBAND."

 

			The      Hon'ble            Supreme
			Court helds that "It has
			been    opined that      a
26	AIR 2003 SC 2462 Vijaykumar Ramchandra                        Bhate v/s. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate,                        Civil            Appeal no.       7200-7201    of 2001	-	CONSCIOUS             and DELIBERATE STATEMENT            LEVELLED WITH            PUNGENCY   and that      too       PLACED         ON RECORD,                   THROUGH THE     WRITTEN STATEMENT OF       WIFE,
			CAN'T BE       so        LIGHTLY
			IGNORED      or         brushed
			aside."

			The      Hon'ble            Supreme
			Court helds that "HEAVY
			COSTS           AND
			PROSECUTION SHOULD
			BE ORDERED IN CASES
			OF FALSE CLAIMS AND
			DEFENSES"
			The      Hon'ble            Supreme
			Court   helds    that      "This
	(2012) 5 SCC 370		Court in a recent judgment
	Maria   Margarida		in         Ramrameshwari         Devi
	Sequeria          Fernandes		and      Ors.     (supra) aptly
	v.         Erasmo           Jack            de		observed         at         page    266,
	Sequeria,		para     43        that      unless
27	Civil     Appeal no. 2968/2012	-	wrongdoers     are       denied profit    from    frivolous
	Bench:-           Dalveer		litigation,          it          would   be
	Bhandari, H.L. Dattu,		difficult            to         prevent            it.         In
	Deepak Verma		order to curb uncalled for
	Hon'ble            Supreme		and frivolous litigation, the
	Court		Courts have to ensure that
			there    is          no        incentive            or
			motive for        uncalled           for
			litigation. It is a matter of
			common          experience      that
			Court's otherwise         scarce
			time is consumed or more
			appropriately, wasted in a
			large number of uncalled
28			for cases.

29

In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pages 267- 268 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control            unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the Courts may consider                        ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."

30

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v/s. State of Gujarat GUJARAT HIGH COURT Justice Ms.      Sonia Gokani Special            Criminal Application (Quashing)  No. 7666 of 2016 (R/SCR.A/7666/2016)

Application      is Rejected. No maintenance to wife.

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court helds that "WIFE CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR LYING BEFORE COURT TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE." The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court order which ordered prosecution of a lady for blatantly lying before the court to claim maintenance from the husband. The court observed that "It is found that the litigants coming before the court for maintenance chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence."

31

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court helds that "Laws, which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution" .... "The only aspect that needs to be considered is as to whether it is expedient the interest of justice that such prosecution would be necessary."

32

Sumana Bhasin v/s. Neeraj Bhasin Saket District Court, New Delhi (Mahila Court) Justice Ms. Shivani Chauhan Cc No. 316/3/2001

Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.

Imposition of Rs. 1 lakh exemplary Cost on Wife for False complaint and harassment till eternity by abusing the Judicial System. The Hon'ble High Court helds that "The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand cancelled. ... The onus of proof primarily lies on the person who makes the allegations and the onus lies solely on the complainant to substantiate     these allegations by leading cogent evidence in this regard" The applicant has miserably failed to establish any allegations against her husband. The allegations made by wife are false.

33

In the case of '(2011) 8 SCC                249      Rameshwari Devi     &                      Ors                  Vs        Nirmala Devi & Ors., The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "UNSCRUPULOUS LITIGANTS CAN HARASS THE RESPONDENT TILL ETERNITY BY ABUSING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM."

34

Without proof of allegation of  DV,            Dowry, Physica/Mental Cruelty, Wife can't be entitled to any maintenance. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Helds that "The testimony of the complainant throws light on the conduct of the complainant and the extent, to which she has falsified and concocted various allegations and has suppressed important facts in order to harass the husband and had misused the LAW as a tool to extort unjustified money from the Husband for unjustified personal gain. In such glaring circumstances, the Court cannot be expected to be sit as a mute spectator, where the Law is being misused and abused and made a tool of harassment and extortion."

35

Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v/s. Rajesh Jaiswal Madhya            Pradesh High Court Citation            Author:- Justice J.G. Chitre MPLJ 100 2000 (3) Equivalent citation: II (2000) DMC 170

Qualified wife can't sit idle and claim maintenance. Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance.

The                              Hon'ble                        High                 Court helds that "Well qualified spouses                                                                        desirous                                                                       of remaining idle, not working making                                  efforts                          for                                                the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged if the society wants to progress. A spouse is well qualified, is not expected to remain idle                                  to                     squeeze                                   out/milk out                             the other by relieving from him of his/her own purse                    by                                a                        cut                               in                                 the nature              of                                 pendent                                               lite alimony. The law does not expect                                              the                                           increasing number                                                            of                                 such                                    idle persons who by remaining in                the                                    arena                           of                                 legal battles, try to squeeze out the                                                             adversary                                                                                by implementing the provision of     law suitable to their purpose.

36

A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendent lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. The LAW is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. That is also not permissible.

37

The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation.

37

If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendent lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of MAINTENANCE LAW.  It is indirectly          against healthiness of the society.

38

It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and Maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working hours. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ?

39

In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman            possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed. ... How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. The submission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestible. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged.

40                     41	Damanreet Kaur v/s. Indermeet Juneja Delhi High Court Justice Ms. Pratibha Rani Crl.      Rev.    Pet. 344/2011	Qualified wife can't sit idle and claim maintenance. Application      is Rejected. No maintenance.	The Hon'ble High Court helds that "The wife (Petitioner) is well qualified, capable to maintain herself. She also had been actually earning in the past and had chosen to not to work on her own will though she had capacity, well education and experience to work and thus was not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent (Husband).
			The law is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to  earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction.

			(The learned ASJ Mrs. Pooja Talwar (MM - Mahila Court, CC no.352/3, New Delhi) has rightlly declined the interim momentary relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated lady and capable to work and find a suitable job for herself.) Relied upon Judgement Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal, MPLJ 100 2000 (3) MP HC.
27	Smt. Aarti v/s. Shardendu Dharma, Crl. (A) 21/2014, Karkarduma courts, Delhi	No maintenance to wife.	WIFE   IS         WELL QUALIFIED    AND EMPLOYED, SO SHE IS CAPABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF. The Hon'ble Court helds that "If the claim of maintenance is not based upon destitution due to circumstances beyond control of the claimant, then such claim does not lie. It cannot be said that the appellant would have been entitled for maintenance under all circumstances.           Since the      veracity      of     her

			allegations required to be tested with the evidence and prima facie appellant had not approached the court with clean hands, therefore, she was not entitled for any interim relief. The Judgement  relies upon "Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v/s. Rajesh Jaiswal, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice J.G. Chitre, II (2000) DMC 170, AND Damanreet Kaur v/s. Indermeet Juneja, 2013 [1] JCC 306, Delhi High Court"
28	Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. v/s. The state & Anr Delhi High Court Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra Crl.M.C.No.491/2009	No maintenance to wife.	The Hon'ble High Court helds that "The wife is qualified and capable to work and had been earning, she shall not be considered dependant on the husband for her survival. ... We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed."

			The Hon'ble High Court helds that "Fixing maintenance without there being any prima facie proof of the husband being employed are not tenable under Domestic Violence Act."
			The Hon'ble High Court helds that " It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons. The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in marriages and in averments made before the Courts."

			The applicant failed to establish any allegations against her husband. The allegations made by wife are false, therefore she can't be entitled to any maintenance/relief.
29	Smt. Swasti Kaushik v/s. Sh. Ashwini Sharma, CA No. 37/2014, Karmardooma Court, Delhi, ASJ Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj	Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.	WIFE IS EDUCATED AND HAVING          PAST EXPERIENCE OF WORK. The appellant will have to take up some work sooner, she being an educated woman having earlier work experience. The Hon'ble Court helds that "If the appellant chooses not to work for the rest of her life, THE RESPONDENT (Husband) CAN NOT BE MADE TO PAY FOR HER FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE (Wife) IS EDUCATED WOMAN who can maintain herself ... The wife should look for a job and         start            an independent life."

			It relies upon the judgment Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State, 171      (2010)  DLT     644, wherein the Hon'ble High Court            helds that where the parties have equal            educational qualification,            both     must take care of themselves.
30	Thane District Court ASJ            A.         P. Raghuvanshi	No maintenance to wife.	The applicant failed to establish any allegations against her husband, therefore she can't be entitled to         any maintenance/relief. The allegations made by wife are false.

31

Delhi High Court District            Judge  Mrs. Rekha Rani

Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.

The Hon'ble High Court helds/advises that "She (Wife) is well qualified and can't be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on her estranged husband. Wife is educated and having past experience of work. The appellant will have to take up some work sooner, she being an educated woman having earlier work experience.

32

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale vs Khristina Bhosale, Cri. Rev. 226/02, Bombay High Court, Justice V.R. Kingaonkar

No maintenance to wife.

No proof of cruelty leads to no maintenance. Wife is not eligible to claim maintenance in the absence of proof regarding Domestic violence. The Hon'ble High Court helds that "There is no scintilla of evidence to show that really she had lodged a complaint about the matrimonial cruelty Nor her so-called positive statement finds support from her pleadings. ... It is overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge that within a short span of the marriage, the wife left his company and no notice was given within a reasonable time by her, seeking restitution of the conjugal rights."

 

33	Kumar Sankar Chakraborthy v/s. Juthika Chakraborthy, Calcutta High Court, J.:Surya                      Kumar Tiwari Equi. citation: II (1996) DMC 2	Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.	The allegations made by wife are false. The applicant failed to establish any allegations against her husband, therefore she can't be entitled to any maintenance/relief. Without proof, Wife can't be entitled to any maintenance.
34	Jeyanthi          v/s. Jeyapaul Madras            High     Court, Madurai Justice S. Vimala	Revision petition is Rejected/Dismissed. No maintenance to wife.	Wife is not eligible to claim maintenance   under PWDVA in the absence of proof regarding Domestic violence. Justice S. Vimala said provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could be used as a sword/shield to get protection from domestic violence but not used as a sword for causing violence to the other partner in one's life.

35	Sonia v/s. Vinod Rohini Court, Delhi MM Dr. Shahbuddin Application            no. 1192/1	No maintenance to wife.	No domestic violence has been placed. Without proof of DV, Wife can't be entitled           to         any maintenance. The MM has prime facia of the consideration opinion that no domestic violence has been taken place pertaining to this matter.
36	Usha Baghel v/s. Dr. B.B.Singh Justice V. S. Kokja Equi. citation: I (1992) DMC 72 Madhya           Pradesh High Court	Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.	The wife has made a vague and general statement about her income and she has not converted the allegations made in the reply that she was engaged in a business along with her brothers and has borrowed a loan from a nationalized bank. So there was no scope for grant of any interim maintenance to the applicant (wife).

37	Smt. Archana Gupta v/s. Sri Rajeev Gupta, Cr. Rev. no. 201 of 2006, Uttarakhand high Court, Justice Alok Singh	Application      is Rejected.         No maintenance   to wife.	Wife was living separately without any reasonable reason. Husband is ready to accept her wife to his home. The allegations made by wife are false. The Principle judge family court has also refused for maintenance.
38	Kirtiben            v/s. Manharlal Family Court, Rajkot	No maintenance to wife.	Wife was living separately without any reasonable reason. Husband is ready to accept her wife to his home. The allegations made by wife are false. The applicant failed to establish any allegations against her husband.

39	Sunita Kachwah v/s. Anil            Kachwah, Criminal Appeal no. 2310 OF 2014 Hon'ble Supreme Court	-	The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. ... THE WIFE MUST POSITIVELY   AVER  AND PROVE that she is unable to maintain herself and Her HUSBAND      HAS SUFFICIENT   MEANS  To Maintain Her And That HE HAS NEGLECTED TO MAINTAIN HER."
			The Hon'ble Court must LOOK these CONDITIONS BEFORE GRANTING MAINTENANCE:- Wife is indeed unable to maintain herself. Wife has sufficient cause to live separate from husband. Husband has sufficient means to maintain. Husband neglects or refuses to maintain her wife. Wife has deserted her husband or not.

40

Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another, Bench:- S. Ratnavel Pandian, K J Reddy Equivalent citations: AIR  1991  SC  1346, 1991  Supp  (1)  SCC 271

The Hon'ble Supreme Court helds that "The presiding officer of a Court should not simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost and that there is a legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice. It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions - whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done"

41	Vikas Jain v/s. Smt. Deepali Jain Uttrakhand          High Court, Justice Mr. Dharamveer Crl. Rev. no. 88 of 2002 CRLR 88	Application      is Rejected. No maintenance to wife.	Wife is employed & capable to maintain herself., so she is not entitled to         any maintenance. The wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from the revisionist (Husband) as she has been employed, thus she had got sufficient means to maintain herself.
42	K.R.Arun v/s. Amritlal Gautam Punjab - Haryana HC Justice Vinod K. Sharma FA0 No. 164-M of 2002	Petition of Husband is successful No maintenance to wife.	Writ Petition/Application is allowed to quash the impugned order under article 226 and 227 of constition of India.

43	Manish            kumar  v/s. Mrs. Pratibha Delhi High Court Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingara CM(M) 949/2008	No maintenance to wife. Petition            is successful.	Wife and Husband both are having income. Working wife is capable to maintain herself. The wife being            educated, experienced has the capacity to work and earn and maintain herself, So she can't be considered to rely upon her husband and thus can't be entitled to maintenance.
44	Surbhi  Chanda           v/s. Rajiv Chanda Delhi District Court, ASJ            (West-02)        Sh. Raj Kappor Criminal           Rev. 167/2011	No maintenance to wife.	Revision petition is rejected/dismissed. The wife is not entitled to get            maintenance. Maintenance is granted only to minor Child.

45	Dr. E. Shanthi  v/s. Dr. H.K. Vasudev Karnataka High Court Citation              Author:- Justice K.Manjunath Equivalent            citations: AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981	Writ      Petition            is Rejected. No maintenance to wife.	Both husband and Wife are qualified and earning, So no maintenance to wife. The wife (Petitioner) is well qualified, capable to maintain herself and had capacity to work and that she also had been actually earning in the past and earning in present and was not thus entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent (Husband).
46	Vikaskumar     v/s. Harsh Lata Aggrawal Delhi High Court Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingara CM(M) No.539/2008	Petition            is successful to quash impugned order. No maintenance to wife.	Both husband and  Wife are qualified and earning. The wife (Petitioner) is well qualified & experienced, capable to maintain herself and earning, thus she can't be entitled to get any maintenance   from Husband.

47

Marimuthu v/s. Janaki Madras High Court, Madurai Justice P.R. SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1491                     OF 2005

Petition of Husband is successful No maintenance to wife.

Wife is not eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125, Cr.PC as both husband and wife live separately by mutual consent. (The learned Judicial Magistrate,            without properly appreciating the said document and without applying the principle of law found in Sub−Section 4 of Section 125 Cr.PC., has erroneously held that the respondent (wife) was entitled to maintenance)