Delhi sessions court asks woman to find job within a year, grants maintenance

In an encouraging development for married men – and maybe women too who don’t believe women should be living like parasites – a Delhi sessions court has asked a woman who asked for maintenance to find work within 1 year.  Even though additional maintenance amount of 10,000 was granted for 1 year, the condition to find work seems unbelievable because of the maintenance regime in the India so far has been just-ask-for-maintenance-you-will-get-something-no-matter-your-own-role-in-the-problem.

From: Delhi court asks woman to find job within a year, grants maintenance

“The woman shall during the period of one year look for a job and start an independent life. After the conclusion of one year, respondent (husband) shall not pay the maintenance of woman,” Additional Sessions Judge Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj said.

“The appellant will have to take up some work sooner or later, she being an educated woman having earlier work experience,” the court said, adding “this maintenance, however, cannot be perpetual as argued by the counsel for the respondent (man).

The court directed the man to pay an additional amount of Rs 10,000 per month to his wife but said “this maintenance, however, shall be for restricted period i.E. For one year from the date of this order.”

I am highly enthused by the words directed towards applicant woman to “start an independent life”.  My translation: earn your own income and stop thinking of marriage as a lifetime passport to living like a parasite on husband’s income.  It was only few years back that SC judges orally said in open court that once a man gets married, he should forget independence – the intent being that you can’t get a divorce without paying a lot to wife.  So this is a refreshing development, even if at the level of sessions court.  Further the news says:

The sessions court observed that she had to leave her job due to marriage and birth of child and the man has a liability to provide her maintenance.

The sessions court also upheld the Rs 15,000 maintenance granted to the child of the couple and Rs 10,000 relief for residence granted to the wife.

It took on record the salary of the husband as Rs 75,000 saying his actual income will be decided during the trial of the domestic violence case which was pending.

Taking on record husband’s salary to be 75,000, overall the husband has to pay Rs 15,000 towards child, Rs 10,000 for residence, and now 10,000 for next 1 year to wife.  Which becomes Rs 35,000 out of 75,000 assessed income.  After 1 year, it will be back to 25,000 per month.  What is also needed in India is to bring a regime where child maintenance is kept in a separate bank account in child’s name, and that money cannot be used for any other purpose but welfare of child.  As of now, the whole money goes to mother, and who can guarantee whether the money is being used for child’s welfare and not for other purposes?

Nevertheless, an important milestone on the road to stop the parasitism in the name of maintenance of wives.

Update Mar 21: Someone has shared 1 page scan of order which I am giving below.   Also found the full judgment on net which is given after this 1 page scan.  In the 1 page order there are hardly any details so it looks like just the order without the reasons.  One thing I notice is the respondent (husband) has appeared party-in-person.  Maybe that had something to do with this unusual order.  Why aren’t advocates able to get such orders for respondents who are husbands?  Are they blindly following the precedents and conventional wisdom of paying maintenance to wives?, or just plain laziness at the job?

Restricted-Maintenance-10K-Till-1-year-KKD-East-Anuradha-Shukla-Bhardwaj-Delhi-judgment

Full judgment text follows

IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ-02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 37/2014

Smt. Swati  Kaushik
W/o Sh. Ashwini Sharma
R/o C-501, Nagarjuna Aparments,
Mayurkunj, Near Chilla Regulator
Delhi-110096
………….Appellant

Versus
Sh. Ashwini Sharma
S/o Sh. C. Paul Sharma
R/o B-37, Cel Apartments,
Plot No. B-14, Vasundhra Enclave
New Delhi-110096
………… Respondent

ORDER
1.   By this order I shall    dispose of the appeal u/s 29 D.V.
Act whereby  appellant challenged the order dated 22/09/14.

2.    The marriage between the parties is admitted and so is
Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 1 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma
the birth of child.   The parties has   leveled allegations and counter
allegations.   The  parties  filed    respective  affidavits  of   income  and
assest before the trial court. After considering the prima facie case
Ld. Trial  Court held that the appellant/ wife was working with Tata
Sky Ltd. She had a Master Diploma and she could maintain herself.
The   minor   child,   however,   was   granted   a   maintenance   of   Rs.
15,000/- from the date of petition.  Respondent was also granted Rs.
10,000/-   in   lieu   of   expenses   for   residence.   The   income   of   the
respondent was considered as Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 75,000 per month.
The  order   has  been  challenged  interalia  on  the  ground  that   the
appellant is an unemployed lady and has to take care of her minor
child.   The respondent   and   his family members     had assets and
had huge income. Appellant is living with her father and is dependent
on him. The expenditure of respondent as per affidavit is much more
than   his   income   which   shows   that   he   earns   more.     He   lives
luxurious life,   maintains   driver,   servant etc. The respondent has
also  challenged  the  order   vide  separate  appeal   stating  that   the
appellant can maintain herself.  It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for
the appellant that she  is living with the  minor child separately from
the  respondent,   however,   the  respondent   has  not   paid    a    single
penny  for  the  maintenance  of   minor  child  despite  the  filing  of   the
Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 2 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma
petition under DV Act in September 2011.     It was   argued that the
though   the   appellant   was   working   earlier,     now   she   has   the
responsibility of the minor child.   The appellant cannot move out of
her house to take up a  job leaving the minor child behind.    It was
argued that the respondent to avoid his liability has taken personal
loans   and   education   loan.   As   per   the   records   the   income   of
respondent  is  about  2  lacs per months and the wife  and  child are
entitled for 60 % of the income.

3.   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   respondent   on   the   other   hand
argued that  the respondent had to quit his job due to litigation.  He
wanted  to  keep  appellant   with  him  but   she  filed  the  Divorce.     He
argued  that   the  child  is  of   5  years  old  now  and    if   the  appellant
chooses not to work for the rest of her life, the respondent cannot be
made to pay for her for the rest of her life despite the fact that she is
educated woman who can maintain herself.

4.   Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 140 (2007) DLT 16,  Bharat Hegde
Vs. Saroj Hegde where it was held that the applicant ( wife) had
a   right   to   live   in   a   similar   life   style   as   she   enjoyed   in
Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 3 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma
matrimonial home.    He has also relied upon some more judgment
which lay down more or less similar rule, the judgment being of the
period of  2005 to 2009.  The   law  has  changed since  then,  by  the
judgment in In 171 (2010) DLT 644, Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs.
State  wherein  the  Hon’ble  High  Court   held  that   where  the  parties
have   equal   educational   qualification,   both   must   take   care   of
themselves.

5.   Similar judgments   have been delivered by the Hon’ble
High  Court   over   the  period.   The  appellant   is  contesting  that   her
husband earns a lot of money and she is entitled for a share in it.
She herself cannot work because she has to take care of the minor
child.    The child would be 5 years  plus as of now and as argued by
the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the   appellant will have to take
up  some  work    sooner   or   later,   she  being  an  educated  woman
having   earlier   work   experience.   So   far   as   the   minor   child   is
concerned the respondent cannot run away from  the liability towards
child even if the appellant  who is the mother of the child,  is working
and is  independent.

6.   Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent
Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 4 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma
earns much more than is reflected from its affidavits.   The admitted
income  of   the  respondent   as  of   now  is  Rs.   75,000/-.   His  actual
income is a matter of trial.  If the appellant proves that he is earning
more,     she  would  be  entitled  for   enhanced  maintenance  payable
from back date.   At prima facie stage, respondent having admitted
that he earns Rs. 75,000/-,     it shall  be   taken as his income. The
order in so far  as   it relates to  the maintenance granted to the child
at Rs. 15000/- is without any error.   There is no error in the relief of
residence  granted  to  the  wife  as  Rs.   10,000/-  per  month  as  well.
Since  the  wife  has  pleaded  that   she  had    to  leave  her  job  due  to
marriage and birth of child, and as of now she is unemployed,   the
respondent   has  a  liability  to  provide    for   her   maintenance.     This
maintenance  however,   cannot   be  perpetual   as  argued  by  the  Ld.
Counsel for the respondent.   The take away salary of Rs. 75,000/-
has  been  admitted  by  the  respondent.   He  is  already  paying  Rs.
10,000/-   towards   residence   to   the   appellant.   He   shall   pay   an
additional   amount   of   Rs.   10,000/-   per   month  to    the  wife.     This
maintenance however, shall be for restricted period i.e. for one  year
from the date of this order. The appellant shall during this period of
one  year   look  for   a  job  and  start   an  independent   life.   After   the
conclusion of  one year ,  respondent shall not pay the maintenance
Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 5 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma
of the appellant.  Rest of the order remains unaltered.  The order is
modified in above terms.

7.    TCR be sent back along with copy of this order.  Appeal
file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open
court on  12/03/2015     (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)
ASJ-02, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI

Crl. (A) No. 37/2014 Page 6 of 6 Swati Kaushik Vs. Ashwani Sharma