Sunday, July 5, 2009

Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008

Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008
The Noble Justice Dhingra in action again. This time delivers justice in a HMA
case, Parnab Kumar Chakarborthy Vs Ruma Chakarborthy-2008
Here is what he had to say:
• 3. The petitioner in his petition has stated that the learned Court has taken
into account his gross salary while his net salary after deduction was
hardly Rs.5,000/-. He had to maintain two houses. He was working in
Bhiwadi in Rajasthan as Shift In charge, his daughter from the earlier
deceased wife was living at his ancestral house at Rai Barelli with his
ailing mother. Thus, he had to maintain two units; one at Rai Barelli and
other at Rajasthan. He also pleaded that the learned ADJ had not
taken into account the fact that the wife was a professional
beautician, who had done diploma in beauty-culture and hair
dressing and in the bio data supplied to him at the time of marriage,
it was stated that she was a freelance beautician doing the work of
beautician. He further stated that the account of expenditure given
by the wife would show that she was living in luxury, which was not
possible out of the meager income of her father, who was a retired
Naval Officer and since she was qualified and was spending a lot so,
there was a presumption that she was earning and she had not come
to the Court with clean hands.
Here is the judgment:
Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008

woman who work need no maintenace

Publication: Times Of India Delhi;Date: May 14, 2009;Section: Times City;Page: 4
‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’
Smriti Singh | TNN
New Delhi: Can a “well qualified” woman capable of getting a decent job seek maintenance from her “not so qualified”
husband? The trial court says no.
Dismissing the concept of women being the “weaker sex” and urging them to work rather than being dependent on
their “pati parmeshwar”, a district court rejected the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her mentally disturbed
and unemployed husband.
“True, an able-bodied person can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The
same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well-versed
cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case,” additional district
judge Rajender Kumar Shastri said.
“According to Hindu mythology, a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared
into oblivion now. Women are not parasites. The concept of “pati parmeshwar” has already been jettisoned and is
substituted by equal partner in life. We cannot allow this better half to remain a protege of her male partner for life,” ADJ
Shastri added.
Seeking a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month along with Rs 21,000 as litigation expenses, the woman had knocked
on the court’s door after her husband had filed a divorce case in the court alleging that his wife was having an affair with
an another man and was treating him cruelly.
In her petition, the woman said she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her father for
survival. She also claimed that her husband was employed and was earning Rs 20,000 per month as salary.
Her husband denied all the claims. Filing a reply through his counsel M K Magan, the man claimed that he was earlier
working in some shop and earned a meagre salary. After the turbulence in his married life, he lost his job. He alleged
that his wife had abandoned her son also and eloped with another man.
He also claimed that he was receiving treatment at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahadra.
During deliberations, the court found out that the applicant was unemployed. The court also noted that the woman was a
graduate and her husband had only cleared his senior secondary examination.
Cautious about not “pre judging” the case at the initial stage, the court after hearing the arguments, noted that it could
not shut its eyes from the allegations made by the husband which were supported with evidence. “It will be unjust to
emburden the husband to pay maintenance to the wife who is equally able bodied and rather more qualified and
competent to earn,” ADJ Shastri said while dismissing the application.
‘WIFE EQUALLY ABLE’
What the judge said
It will be unjust to burden the husband to pay an amount of maintenance to wife who is equally able and rather more
qualified and competent to earn With development of society, women are not parasites upon male members of their
family The vestiges of male chauvinism are being weeded out. We cannot allow this better half (woman) to remain
protege of her male partner forever NOT THE FIRST TIME
January ’09
A court in Karkardooma had ordered a woman to pay her husband maintenance this year
‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk...
1 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AM
February ’09
Court rejected maintenance plea of woman stating she cannot seek maintenance to enrich her lifestyle
May 13, ’09
Woman denied maintenance for being more qualified and capable to work
‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’ http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDk...
2 of 2 6/10/2009 11:58 AM

HMA 24 Judgemetns

1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Sangeeta Piyush Raj
Vs
Piyush
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial
proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not
necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under
Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable -
However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable.

------------ --------- -

2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Smt.Gayatri Singh
Vs
Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh & Anr.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance -
Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance
rightly rejected.

------------ --------- ------

------------ --------- --

1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.)
MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Smt.Indira Gangele
Vs
Shailendra Kumar Gangele
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the
maintenance pendente lite is from the date of application - if
specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of
institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In
case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding,
order may be made operative from date of order.
------------ --------- --------- --
1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala)
KERALA HIGH COURT

Nandakumar Parrat
Vs
Sreekala Rani
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient
income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed?
Held -No.

------------ --------- ------
------------ --------- ---
2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras)
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rohini
Vs
R.Durairaj
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband
only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient
means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly
dismissed by trial Court.
------------ --------- ---------
2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H)
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kuldip Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur
Vs
Karam Singh
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendente lite to
the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance -
Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It
is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever -
Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are
equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband
ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month -
Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from
the date of filing of the revision.
------------ --------- --
1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Singh
Vs
Smt.Vidya
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from
earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.

1998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Sangeeta Piyush Raj
Vs
Piyush
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial
proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not
necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under
Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable -
However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable.

------------ --------- -

2005(3) Civil Court Cases 101 (Rajasthan)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Smt.Gayatri Singh
Vs
Wing.CDR.Sanjay Singh & Anr.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance -
Wife earning Rs.3500/- p.m. - Application of wife for maintenance
rightly rejected.

------------ --------- ------

------------ --------- --

1991 Civil Court Cases 424 (M.P.)
MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Smt.Indira Gangele
Vs
Shailendra Kumar Gangele
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Date of payment - The normal date of payment for the
maintenance pendente lite is from the date of application - if
specific prayer is made then order maybe made either from the date of
institution of suit or first appearance made by the defendant - In
case the applicant is found guilty of protracting the proceeding,
order may be made operative from date of order.
------------ --------- --------- --
1989 Civil Court Cases 441 (Kerala)
KERALA HIGH COURT

Nandakumar Parrat
Vs
Sreekala Rani
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite disallowed on the ground that wife has sufficient
income for her support - Whether litigation expenses can be allowed?
Held -No.

------------ --------- ------
------------ --------- ---
2005(3) Civil Court Cases 137 (Madras)
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rohini
Vs
R.Durairaj
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband
only if she is unable to maintain herself - Wife having sufficient
means to maintain herself - Petition for interim maintenance rightly
dismissed by trial Court.
------------ --------- ---------
2000(2) Civil Court Cases 534 (P&H)
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kuldip Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur
Vs
Karam Singh
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Rs.500/- p.m. granted as maintenance pendente lite to
the wife - Wife filed revision for enhancement of maintenance -
Husband maintaining the minor child - Wife is M.A. in Economics - It
is unbelievable that wife is not having any income whatsoever -
Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are
equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage - Husband
ready to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month -
Husband to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.1000/- p.m. from
the date of filing of the revision.
------------ --------- --
1999(3) Civil Court Cases 219 (Rajasthan)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Singh
Vs
Smt.Vidya
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Maintenance
pendente lite - Spouse who voluntarily incapacitates himself from
earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.