This is a Mar 2014 judgment of Delhi sessions court which had denied maintenance to wife under DV Act, and it seems very important for any husband facing maintenance case whose wife worked at some point of time even if before marriage. One of the most common scenarios we hear from men is that “wife was working before marriage, but left job after marriage, and has now filed maintenance case on me”. Or a less common scenario: “wife was working after marriage also, but left the house, then filed maintenance case saying she doesn’t have a job”.
Main thing I find is woman herself acknowledged she used to run a business before marriage. Which is why past working status is the most crucial part of evidence husband needs to collect if the woman denies that she is currently working.
Important parts of (a short) judgment below:
6. The appellant in her complaint before the trial court stated that she was doing the small business of fashion designer in the name of M/s She Fab Expose in Delhi. There is an admission on part of the appellant that she was working and thus is capable of working. It is not pleaded as to how her marriage has rendered her incapable of continuing the work which she was doing prior to her marriage. The couple does not have any child and therefore the appellant is as independent as the respondent to work and maintain herself.
In 171 (2010) DLT 644, Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. State the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that where the parties have equal educational qualification, both must take care of themselves and dismissed the revision of the wife.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No. 344/11 dated 14/09/12, Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja also dismissed the petition of the wife holding that she was capable to work.
7. In view of the judgments the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where it has been held that wherever the wife is capable to work and had been working, she shall not be considered dependent upon the husband for her survival, there is no apparent error in the order of Ld. Trial Court.
8. In view of above the appeal is dismissed.
Full judgment text below:
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 135/13
Shilpa Gupta
W/o Shailesh Gupta
D/o Sh. Suresh Maheshwari
at Flat No. 202, Plot No. 383/12,
West Guru Angad Nagar,
Gurudwara Road,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092
.............Appellant
Versus
Shailesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Bal Kishan Bansal
R/o 4694/21A, II Floor,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi
............ Respondent
ORDER
1. The revision was filed u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the
order of Ld. Trial Court passed in a complaint u/s 12 of Domestic
Violence Act.
2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection
that the revision was not maintainable in its given form as appeal u/s
29 of D.V. Act and not revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. is maintainable
against the impugned order.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the amended memo
along with amended cause title with the request to treat the petition
as an appeal u/s 29 of DV Act, since the contents and prayer
remains the same. The petition shall be teated as an appeal u/s 29
of D.V. Act.
4. On merit it was argued that the appellant, who was married to
the respondent, is dependent for her livelihood upon the
respondent. Ld. Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that
she is capable to work and so cannot be granted maintenance. It is
argued that it cannot be decided at a prima facie stage as to whether
the petitioner is capable of working or not and that appellant not
doing any work at present, shall be presumed to be dependent upon
the husband. Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand
argued that as per her own admission the appellant was working
before her marriage. It was argued that she is an independent
woman and can maintain herself.
5. Argument heard. Record Perused.
6. The appellant in her complaint before the trial court stated
that she was doing the small business of fashion designer in the
name of M/s She Fab Expose in Delhi. There is an admission on part
of the appellant that she was working and thus is capable of
working. It is not pleaded as to how her marriage has rendered her
incapable of continuing the work which she was doing prior to her
marriage. The couple does not have any child and therefore the
appellant is as independent as the respondent to work and maintain
herself.
In 171 (2010) DLT 644, Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. State
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that where the parties have
equal educational qualification, both must take care of themselves
and dismissed the revision of the wife.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No.
344/11 dated 14/09/12, Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja
also dismissed the petition of the wife holding that she was capable
to work.
7. In view of the judgments the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi where it has been held that wherever the wife is capable to
work and had been working, she shall not be considered dependent
upon the husband for her survival, there is no apparent error in the
order of Ld. Trial Court.
8. In view of above the appeal is dismissed. TCR be sent back
along with copy of order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open
court on 18/03/14 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)
ASJ02, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI