This 2007 judgment of Delhi court had denied maintenance to wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).  Basically she failed to disclose her own qualifications and that could be construed as coming with "unclean hands" in front of court.  As of now, Delhi has a mandatory disclosure of income/expense/asset/liabilities affidavit for all cases filed in family court.

Important grounds on which maintenance was rejected:

In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party.

Read full judgment text below:

IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ROHINI COURT : DELHI
M No. 28/07
Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal – Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal – Respondent

ORDER
1.. This is an order on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant/
wife, respondent in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the non-applicant/
husband, petitioner in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) for grant of
maintenance pendentelite and for litigation expenses.
2.. In the application it is stated that the applicant/ wife has no independent source of income and
she is not given any kind of maintenance by the non-applicant/ husband to live her life properly and
therefore she is facing much hardship in the life. The non-applicant/ husband has flatly refused to
maintain her. The non-applicant/ husband is working in a private sector as a Senior Software
Engineer HPC in STM Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 A, Knowledge Park-2 (near LG Gol
Chakkar), Greater Noida and is earning about Rs. 80,000/-pm. He has no other liability and he is
not discharging his responsibilities towards the applicant/ wife with ulterior motives to harass and
humiliate the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/
husband and, thus, being a husband, he is bound to maintain the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife
is fully dependent on the mercy of her parents, who are having other liabilities also and she has no
independent source of income to maintain herself. It is, therefore, prayed that the non-applicant/
husband be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-pm as maintenance allowance pendentelite to the
applicant/ wife and expenses of proceedings.
3.. The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated
that the applicant/wife is a well qualified graduate Engineer in the field of information Technology
and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome
salary as initially she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Now-a-days she is competent and qualified to earn
thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in
all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any
manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/
husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed
by her for any purpose in any manner. It is not denied that the non-applicant/ husband is also a
qualified engineer and is employed in Greater Noida, U.P. but the actual amount of monthly salary
being drawn by him is Rs. 45,000/-pm. It is stated that he has to maintain his retired father and
ailing, diabetic mother and old grandmother and also to treat his two married sisters and to look-after
his younger unmarried under-education sister of marriageable age as his younger sister is doing B.Ed.
from a regular college. He is also paying loan premiums and other household expenses. The
applicant/ wife has herself deserted her matrimonial home without any threats or atrocities caused to
her by her in-laws and she is not returning to her matrimonial home despite the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights filed by the non-applicant/ husband. It is stated that the non-applicant/
husband is publicly and openly as well as warmly welcoming the applicant/ wife to her matrimonial
home but she has started demanding maintenance sitting in her parental home to feed her greedy
parents and selfish relatives instead of returning to her matrimonial home and to assist the non-
applicant/ husband and her other in-laws in her matrimonial home at the time of need. It is stated
that the conduct, attitude and nature of the applicant/ wife is of such type that she is not entitled for
any maintenance. Further more, she has also filed a separate petition U/s 125Cr. P.C. for
maintenance only with a view to get the non-applicant/ husband harassed in a criminal court. It is
stated that the applicant/ wife is not a helpless or poor lady and she is not incapable to maintain
herself as she is a well qualified engineer and is already an earning hand. She is handing over all her
income to her parents. She does not require any monastery assistance from the non-applicant/
husband as she is already having a good bank balance in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Rohini,
Sector-5, Delhi , bearing A/c No. 61005521399 and several other bank accounts also. She also has
some immovable properties in her name. It is denied that she requires Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance
and other charges as prayed. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost.
4.. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record.
5.. During the course of arguments it has not been denied by the Counsel for the applicant/ wife that
the applicant/ wife herself is an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology. Ld.
Counsel for the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife
joined the job for some time after the marriage but thereafter due to the marital disputes she is not in
a position to pursue her job and has left the same. In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no
where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she
also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to
the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife
has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate
and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy
of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to
extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to
blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the
Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:-
“Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting
idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has
been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable
of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service
immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by
cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification
like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting
matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on
husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial
petition.”
6.. In I (2001) DMC 19 titled Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal Vs. Sanjay Kumar Ratilal Jaiswal,
Mehsana, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the wife is entitled for Free Legal Aid and
therefore, the Court should keep in mind that wife is entitled for free legal services also.
7.. In the present case the applicant/ wife is a well qualified engineer and, therefore, there is no need
for her to sit idle at home waiting for the maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the applicant/ wife is well qualified and, therefore,
can earn handsome amount by working and there is no need for her to be financially dependent upon
her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance. While hearing
arguments on the application it was ordered that the maintenance shall be granted to the wife till the
disposal of the petition. This sentence in order sheet dated 27.08.2007 only means that the wife is
entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main
petition and not thereafter. It no where reflects that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance I every
case come
what may.
8.. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the application U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act of the
applicant/ wife is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in Open Court

Dated : 19.09.2007

In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no

where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she
also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to
the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife
has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate
and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy
of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to
extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to
blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the
Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:-
“Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting
idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has
been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable
of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service
immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by
cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification
like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting
matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on
husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial
petition.”