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”.
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues
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
I am a retired employees of 67 years old with monthly income of only 1252.00 pension and superannuation benefit of Rs.7747. My wife has left my house during my absence without my consent, wish and knowledge with the wife of her maternal uncle. She has filed a case for maintenance under section 125 cr.pc. She has confessed in her witness that she used to teach little children at my house, get medical treatment facilities from me and my office for herself and our children, go together with husband to attend programme of Ladies Club in which she was a member. She also said in her oral witness that I used to give school expenses of our children, behave properly with her, took information about her and provided maintenance to her. She has said in the court that she is not willing to come back to my house. I met her 20 times at her father’s house and have given maintenance allowance in cash, requested her to come back in person, in letter and in a cancellation meeting in presence of Ld Advocates of both the parties. I have submitted two dairies written by my wife in the court as exhibits. In these dairies she wrote that she was not willing to marry me because many persons loved her, wanted to marry her but her parents did not give her marriage to any of them for their own interest. She has deserted me four times and on previous two occasion she wrote me letter stating her confession and commitment to come back and live with me peacefully. She also confessed that I have tried to bring her back, give her financial security but failed because she has not come back and misunderstand me. Our only son died at the age of 17 and only daughter left my house and married according to her choice though I met her and her lover and wanted to give their marriage but they did not give me that opportunity. Her father had also given a written commitment that on the basis of miscommunication of their daughter they could not treated their son-in-law i.e. me properly and they have taken their daughter to their house and kept there for more than five months. My son .e. their grand son has gone to their house many times to bring his mother back home but failed.
I used to give my salary to my wife who used to spend for maintaining the family affairs including gift etc and used to write the entire expenditure in dairies. I have arranged for her pension and medical treatment by my Office even after my death. My son went to bring her back last and fell ill there at her father’s house. She did not inform me, provide him proper care, medicine and treatment from a registered medical practitioner nor bring him to my Company hospital where free medical treatment is given. She retained him there for 3 days under the treatment of Quack doctor and after 3 days brought to our hospital at a very worst condition and hence he could not be saved despite best treatment from reputed doctors.
Kindly advise how I could fight this case?
How to fight maintenance cases is already there on this website in many posts/judgments, and I even wrote a whole book on the topic. So you can refer to them. You will have to decide whether to focus on bringing wife back (favourite suggestion of lawyers), or instead prove there is no neglect, no maintenance can be given, and let her stay wherever she wants to.
Let the modern trend be against purity of married life. But, it is the fact that, married life signifies purity of sex. Either arranged marriage or a love marriage, is a marriage in its truer sense. Marriage is are made in heaven; marriage is for the whole life, and even its relation continues for ever even after this life.
Let the husband or wife be bad, no matter, they are husband and wife for ever, the pains of married life must be endured by both with out grumbling. Pains are incidental, and vanishes after few minutes/ hours/ days/ months/ years. Waiting for the happy time with utmost tolerance, with the moral support of all the family members, both elders and youngers, relatives and friends, and even neighbours.
If husband or wife, due to unhappy incident, thinks of go away from each other, it is like “jumping from a frying pan to a forest fire, to be burnt out”.
For any family disturbing issues, the solution is not at all divorce, which is the greatest tsunami like catastrophe in Hindu or Any married life, on this globe.
For the timely good or bad, the judiciary should protect both husband and wife from not going away for ever through divorce, and thus destroying the most significant family life from this earth ( See Confucius Philosophy of Family Life).
In any nation and time, in the married life, it is male dominant family life, so, till today, Govt. of India could not pass the Women Right Bill. Hence, It is binding to husband to take care of his wife, in all her welfare aspect, at the time of their living together and their living apart, without divorce.
The divorce based family courts must and should be abolished from India, for ever and ever, since, it is destroying the purity of the social life and thus destroying families for ever and ever.
Every judges, must and should, dismiss the divorce petitions, mercilessly, in order to save families from forest fire. Let them be burning in hot pans, which lost for few hours/ days only. Family pains are passing lightnings, thunders and rains.
Let us all together, live to protect the sacred and heavenly family life.
Best Wishes to one and all who will determine to save the family life.
Namaste
Prof.B.Krishna.
I am facing this problem in my marriage also, very harsh law against men but luckily Court is recognizing fake cases and taking good steps.
God save the men in india with such female oriented laws. The only saving grace being that the judiciary has started recognising these extortion rackets.
can the judgements of sessions court be submitted, which have jurisdiction local to the specific session’s court ?
Not sure. Lawyer not helping with it?
It’s good not to have a men dominated world. But their should be no women dominated world either. At least our judges have started addressing this fact.