Grounds to corroborate that nature favours justice for petitioner:

1.The learned court has not appreciated what is prohibited in nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. The legal maxim " Quae rerum natur prohibentuur, null lege confirmata sunt " which means what is prohibited in the nature of things, can not be confirmed by law. So, it is against the law of nature to provide the maintenance to abled body and well educated wife when she can earn and she has cheated and put false allegations on her husband only to get the maintenance from her husband whereas husband has other liabilities and strain his nerve to meet the expenses of his family for the happiness of his family.

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. 

3. 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.

4. Because of the learned court has not considered the fact that husband was also protected from unfair maintenance when wife was well-educated and making false allegations on husband. There citations pertaining to the above are mentioned herewith and given below:

o   Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 234 (2016) DLT 693.

o   Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012.

o   Biswajit Murmu & Anr vs The State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) on 29 July, 2015.

o   Smt. Mamta Jaiswal V. Rajesh Jaiswal on 24th March, 2000.

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

o   Sudhir Gupta v. Maniha Kumari @ Manisha Gupta [ CRL.M.C. 1117/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5684/2021.

o   Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008 .

o   Bhagwan V. Kamla Devi(AIR 1975 SC 83 ).

o   Dr. E. Shanthi vs Dr. H.K. Vasudev on 22 August, 2005 ,Karnataka High Court.

o   Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

o   Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

o   Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798.

o   Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

x

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