Found this news full judgment of Nov 2014 about a maintenance judgment in a Mahila court in Delhi where maintenance was denied to a woman doctor earning 21,200 p.m. I was aware of something called Mahila thana (women’s police station) which are supposed to make women feel comfortable to file complaint in front of women policepersons. But don’t know what exactly is this phenomenon called Mahila court and the logic behind it, since delivery of justice and courts are something where everyone irrespective of gender, caste, religion will be received equally without prejudice! So what is the logic behind Mahila court? Will women get better justice, or real justice, or gender-sensitive justice there? What exactly will they get in Mahila court which they can’t get in ‘ordinary’ court? Anyway end of rant now.
The judgment seems to be on solid footing citing Delhi HC precedents and sound logic based on facts of the case that wife too was a BDS, MBBS qualified doctor and actually she admitted to earning Rs 21,2000 per month. Come on! Spare the courts wastage of time in handling such cases.
Important part of judgment below:
7. In the case in hand also both husband and wife are equally
qualified doctors having qualifications of BDS, MBBS etc and
admittedly complainant is earning an amount of Rs. 21,200/ PM at
present and she has also received an amount of Rs. 51000/ from her
previous employer and as per income affidavit of respondent he was
employed on contract basis and his contract had already ended.
In these circumstances when complainant and respondents are
equally qualified and complainant herself is employed as well as in
view of aforesaid judgment, complainant is not entitled to any kind
of interim maintenance at this stage from the respondent / husband
and her application stands dismissed accordingly.
Full judgment text below:
Note: names of parties have been removed
CC No. 15/3
Complainant Wife vs Respondent Husband & Ors.
03.11.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Respondent with Ld. Counsel.
1. Vide this order this court shall decide application for interim
maintenance moved on behalf of petitioner thereby demanding
interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ per month from the
respondent / husband.
2. It is admitted fact that marriage between the complainant and
respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 11.05.2011 according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies at UP. It is alleged by the complainant /wife
that parents of the complainant spent a lot on her marriage but
despite that respondent / husband was not happy with the dowry
brought by the complainant being insufficient and that is why
respondent caused extreme physical, mental, verbal, emotional and
economic torture to the complainant and at present complainant
and respondent are residing separately. On 07.10.11, complainant in
order to save her life took her all certificates, few clothings and
reached at her friends place at Ghaziabad but respondent / husband
contacted the complainant on phone and gave threat of dire
consequences and called up parents of the complainant and started
abusing them on 12.10.11. On 25.10.11 complainant finally decided
to not to go back to
..2..
respondent no. 1 at matrimonial home and she decided to stay at
Delhi because of the threats and harassment caused by the
respondents.
3. During the course of arguments it is submitted on behalf of
complainant that she is claiming interim maintenance to the tune of
Rs. 50,000/ PM from respondent / husband though she is employed
and earning an amount of Rs. 21,200/ PM but the same is not
sufficient for her maintenance. It is also submitted that respondent
is earning an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ PM as per his own income
affidavit.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondent in
his reply that complaint filed by the complainant is false and
frivolous and no dowry demand has ever been made by the
respondents. It is further submitted that the car which was gifted by
the parents of the complainant had already been taken by the
complainant alongwith her. It is also submitted that on 29.8.14
respondents contract got terminated and income of Rs. 1.40 lacs has
ended. During the course of arguments it is also submitted that
complaint and respondent both are qualified Doctors and therefore
for the aforesaid reasons, complainant’s application for interim
maintenance be dismissed with cost.
5. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both the
parties and perused the record carefully.
..3..
6. Perusal of income affidavit filed on behalf of complainant and
respondent no. 1 reveals that both are well qualified doctors as
complainant is having professional qualification of DDS and MBA
and respondent is having professional qualification of MBBS, M.Ph
and PGDE. Delhi High court has categorically held in Judgment
titled Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State & Anr, 2010 IV AD (CRL)
(DHC) 481 (HIGH COURT OF DELHI) CRL. M.C.NO. 491/2009
“We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The constitution
provide equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste
and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA
decree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife,
who is also holding an MBA decree. Since both are on equal
putting one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is
employed and other is not employed. ” Hon’ble High Court
further held that “no law provides that a husband has to
maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of
the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the
husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give
maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife
are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of
earning. ”
7. In the case in hand also both husband and wife are equally
qualified doctors having qualifications of BDS, MBBS etc and
admittedly complainant is earning an amount of Rs. 21,200/ PM at
present and she has also received an amount of Rs. 51000/ from her
previous employer and as per income affidavit of respondent he was
..4..
employed on contract basis and his contract had already ended.
In these circumstances when complainant and respondents are
equally qualified and complainant herself is employed as well as in
view of aforesaid judgment, complainant is not entitled to any kind
of interim maintenance at this stage from the respondent / husband
and her application stands dismissed accordingly.
8. Put up for CE on 06.01.2015.
(SHILPI JAIN)
MM (MAHILA COURT)
ROHINI/DELHI/03.11.14