Ground 3:

Grounds to corroborate genuine liabilities and how the petitioner fulfilled his responsibilities honestly:

The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena would like mention his liabilities without alleging to respondent Smt. Megha Khare because he spent a lot on Smt. Megha Khare considering her a true friend because in accordance with petitioner, the happiest man is one who finds the true friend in his wife.

The Indusind Bank credit card statement that the petitioner has incurred about Rs 60000/- on his wife (respondent)  and her family when he came to Jabalpur on the occasion of Barsi of his Father in law. In another instance, the petitioner has spent Rs 1,74,000 in arranging air ambulance for his father in law to be airlifted from Jabalpur to Medanta hospital in Gurgaon .All these expenses were incurred on his credit cards only . Accordingly, he incurred an expenses of about Rs 10 lacs in all in 4.5 years of his marriage life so that he could provide a comfortable life to his wife.To summarize the nature of expenses incurred on Petitioners credit cards in 4.5 years of his marriage; these largely includes money spent on their both as a couple since their marriage held in Feb 2014. Dinners ,vacation travels, to and fro air tickets for Megha when she travelled to Jabalpur ,apparel, car maintenance,shopping ,jewelry, shopping ,gifts ,honeymoon ,Medical emergency expenses on Megha’s departed father ,purchase of air tickets at current price so that she could meet her dying father etc. His sole purpose was to provide the best of facilities and comfort to his wife/ respondent, her family so that peace and harmony may prevail and add to the marital bliss.

The lower court has not taken into account basic necessities and utilities like fuel, electricity bills, medcines, doctor consultations, groceries,monthly, vehicle repair and maintenance, allowances for maid ,phone bills, daily personal expenses of an individual in a city like Delhi /NCR ; price index of Jabalpur vis-à-vis Delhi /NCR ,while arriving at Interim Maintenance amount. It is to be mentioned here that almost 50% of the Petitioner’s Net Take Home salary goes towards his Fixed EMI’s and he would need funds for various other household expenses mentioned above. 

The petitioner has the liability of home Loan, premium of mediclaim and montly rent and etc  towards expenses.

Because of , the learned court failed to see that the old parents of petitioner are not able to earn whereas the respondent is abled body and highly educated and can do the job and she did job before and after marriage but now she has put false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena only to get unfair maintenance. 

Lex fori: 

1. Because of learned court has erred to consider that the brother of respondent who is tax advocate is assisting the respondent to get maintenance from petitioner by putting false evidences. The Honourable high court of Rajasthan has very important words in the following case law and the words are " Look for job and don't fight for alimony".

Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 19 May, 2000 on Rajasthan High Court, page no. 362.

The honorable High Court of Jabalpur has not considered the facts given by the petitioner to prove that respondent has put false allegations on him and in-laws only to get the maintenance and has committed offence under section 209 and 211 of IPC.

In the  citation  of “Sri Vikas Pandey vs Smt. Vandita Gautam on 8 October, 2012” , it is mentioned here that Section 18 of the Act or Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the situation where the wife is unable to maintain herself. The word 'unable' means that a person is not able to do what he is supposed to do. In the present matter, it is not a case that the wife is an illiterate lady or is not in a position to do any job, on the contrary the wife is highly educated particularly more than the husband and is clearly in a position to earn . This also disentitles her to get any maintenance in consonance with the judgement of honourable High Court of Allahabad.

2. Because of the learned court has not been pleased to consider that Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (maintenance pendente lite ) permits any party to file a maintenance application if the other party is able to give maintenance and the other party has no means of sustenance.

These are the two noteworthy provisions that must be taken into consideration while talking about the maintenance . Both these provisions are gender-neutral in their approach and can not harass husband for maintenance when wife is abled body and educated as well as can do the job and is putting false allegations on husband and in-laws to get the maintenance.

Law of nature: Because of the honourable High Court has erred to consider the fact that in conformity with legal maxim lex spectat naturae ordinem which means that the law regards the order of nature. The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena also had the intense grief of the death of respondent's father that he could not save her and his father but the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena has told that the death of respondent's father is not greatest loss in her life but the greatest loss in her life is that the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare couldn't fulfill the responsibilities of her happy married life. The petitioner has told if she was waiting for the death of her father to be seperate from petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena.

The learned court has not considered the fact that the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena also has the liabilities of his old parents who can not do the job whereas the respondent, Smt Megha Khare is abled body and well educated and can do the job as she did before and after marriage.  

The petitioner has objected that is actus reus to claim unfair maintenance putting false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Elaborate the citation of S. Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum V/s B Mohammad Ghouse & Anr. on 28 March 2016 ?

Ans: In a decision of Andhra High Court in a case S. Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum V/s B Mohammad Ghouse & Anr. on 28 March 2016, it was held that no maintenance relief to wife who left home without justifiable reasons. The High court found that in the cross examination the wife stated that she executed an agreement in the presence of witnesses with an undertaking that she will not compel the respondent for setting up separate family. If really the wife did not compel the husband persistently to set up separate family, what made her to do her signature on the  agreement? The Courts cannot ignore the human conduct while appreciating the rival submissions of the couple to the proproceedings, more particularly in family matters, wherein the possibility of presenting distorted facts by the couple to the proceedings so that they can gain sympathy of the court .If really the wife had suffered in the hands of the husband and his family members, certainly the wife might have avai...
Read more

Q: Explain the citation of Delhi District Court on Smt. Krishna Dhawan vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010 ?

Ans: Delhi District Court on Smt. Krishna Dhawan vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2010 - In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove on record any justifiable ground for leaving the company of her husband respondent except that she stated that she has been ill illtreated for the last 20 to 23 years but in her cross examination she herself has admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the respondent at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Thus so far as the allegations of dowry demand are concerned, applicant has failed to prove the same. She has also failed to prove any other justifiable ground on record for her living separately from the respondent. In such circumstances, Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is not entitled for any maintenance. Ld. MM has rightly held that applicant is unable to maintain herself and there is no document filed on record by the respondent also to show that applicant is working or is able to maintain hers...
Read more

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more