Learned trial Court, while deciding the issue no. 1, has recorded finding of fact that without any sufficient or reasonable cause wife is living separately. Wife has refused to join company of husband despite the fact that husband wanted her to live with him. It was further held by the learned trial court that wife is under the influence of her father and could not prove allegations of bad habits like consumption of alcohol, gambling and adultery against the husband. While deciding the issue nos. 2 and 3, learned trial Court declined to grant any maintenance to the wife on the basis of finding recorded in issue no. 1 and on the ground that wife is employed and getting Rs. 2200/- per month. However, learned trial Court granted Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance for applicant no. 2, i.e. minor son.

...

Wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband under sub Section a (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., if she is unable to maintain herself. As per the admission made by the wife in the application under Section 125 CrPC and as per the finding recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, wife is employed in a school and getting salary of Rs. 2200/- per month. Revisionist/wife nowhere says that out of this amount of Rs. 2200/- she is unable to maintain herself. On this ground also revisionist is not entitled for any maintenance from the husband.

5. The income tax returns of the assessment year 2004-05 which is in the name of the petitioner shows the income of the petitioner as 1,04,502. The income tax return of the assessment year 2005-06 which is in the name of the petitioner shows the income of the petitioner as 1,67,267. The petitioner has also alleged in her petition that she is acquired one plot adjacent to the plot in which the temple has been situated. The petitioner has not specifically denied the allegations of the respondent that she is running a Bhajan Mandli and she is the head of said Bhajan Mandli and that she is the co­owner of the House bearing No. F­207, Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar, Delhi.

Keeping in view these facts which are showing the financial position of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to show that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.03.12 passed by the trial court in case no. 705/04 of PS Moti Nagar and it is upheld. The revision petition is without any merits and it is dismissed. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to an opinion on the merits of the case.

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 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.

16. The learned counsel for respondent has argued that the petitioner is well qualified and she is earning an amount of Rs.50,000 per month, she is having sufficient income for her maintenance. It is argued by the learned counsel for respondent that before the police station Worli on 12.11.2011 the petitioner has given statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has admitted that she has completed degree in Food and Science Nutrician, she had worked as a dietician, she is Post Graduate in Dietician field, she had also worked with Larcen and Tubro etc. but at present she is not working. The above statement made by the petitioner clearly shows that she is well qualified and able to do job. The respondent though submitted that she is having huge investment in crores of rupees but nothing is placed on record. It is clear from the statement of petitioner that petitioner is well qualified having capacity to earn. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of "Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal held that well qualified wife is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from her husband. In short, the wife is not entitled to advantage of her own wrong, she cannot harass the husband on the count of maintenance though she is capable to earn. In the present case in hand, the petitioner wife is very qualified, she has worked with various companies. This admitted by herself, now she is claiming that she is a housewife, having no source of income. The wife who is well qualified and claiming maintenance by sitting idle is not entitled to get maintenance, secondly she herself has admitted that though her husband is connected with garment business but he has share worth rs.5,000/­only. Considering the above circumstances, it is clear that the wife is having good capacity to earn. According to respondent, she is earning but no any documentary evidence is on record that she is earning. Nothing is on record to prove the income of respondent at this primary stage. In such circumstances, in my view, at this juncture petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

1. The application is rejected.

6. In view of this, the question arises as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente life alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M. Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, can not be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice-versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That can not he treated to he aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient efforts arc unable to support and maintain themselves and arc required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.

...

9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the
Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record
while recording the finding that there was never any demand
for dowry by the appellant. There was, therefore, no reason
for him to ill-treat his wife for this reason. We, therefore,
find that both the reasons given in the application for her ill
treatment are non-existent.
We have also perused the evidence on record with a
view to ascertain whether for any other reason the
respondent was ill treated by the appellant. We have found
from the evidence on record that the behaviour of the
appellant has been throughout normal. It is admitted by the
parties that they frequently went during vacations to visit
different places. On some occasions they were even
accompanied by the relatives of the respondent. The
appellant permitted the respondent to continue her studies
even after her marriage and that is how she secured her B.A.
degree after marriage. He also arranged an agency of the
UTI to keep her engaged and also opened a joint account in
a bank which she could operate. All these facts go to
indicate that for several years after their marriage they
enjoyed normal marital relationship. In fact, there is
evidence to show that the appellant used to praise his wife in
the presence of others by complimenting her and giving her
credit for the good performance of their son in his studies.
This even the respondent has admitted in the course of her
deposition. Apart from these we find it difficult to believe
that if the appellant started torturing the respondent within
15 days of the marriage, the respondent would not have
reported this matter at least to her mother. According to her
mother, she came to know about her ill treatment 5 to 6
years after marriage. According to the respondent in her
complaint Ex. 1 she had mentioned about such happenings
to her mother about eight years after her marriage. While
there is reference to reports lodged by the respondent to the
police regarding torture by the appellant, not one such report
has been brought on record which may have been lodged
before the respondent left her matrimonial home. Even
relevant particulars are not disclosed. The only police report
brought on record is one lodged after the respondent left her
matrimonial home. We do not attach much importance to
this report. There is no contemporaneous document in the
form of letters which may have been written by the
respondent to her friends or relatives mentioning about her
being subjected to torture or harassment by the appellant.
The respondent being an educated lady, it is difficult to
believe that she would not have written letters to her friends
and relatives during the twelve years that she lived with the
appellant as husband and wife. Apart from her mother, the
respondent has produced no evidence of prove that she was
tortured and harassed by the appellant. T

10. It is a fact that respondent is not living with petitioner since September 1988, that means for the last 19 years the parties are living separately. The respondent herself filed divorce petition for dissolving the marriage of the parties which was withdrawn later on by her. She filed one petition for maintenance for herself and another petition for maintenance of the daughter. The respondent has not shown any reasonable cause to live separately at Ambala. There is nothing on record that respondent ever approached the lawful authorities against the alleged ill treatment of husband. The residence of the respondent after marriage is with the petitioner. She has not placed unimpeachable evidence on record to support her separate living. On the basis of material on record and conduct of the respondent, it is clear that respondent has no intention to live with the petitioner and to continue the matrimonial tie. The petitioner has proved desertion and the respondent has failed to prove any just and reasonable cause to live separately. She has levelled bald allegations against the petitioner which has not been proved. The learned District Judge has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective.

...

20. The other matter is this. Once desertion, as defined earlier, is established there is no obligation on the deserted husband (taking the case where he is the deserted spouse) to appeal to the deserting spouse to change her mind, and the circumstance that the deserted husband makes no effort to take steps to effect a reconciliation with the wife does not debar him from obtaining the relief of judicial separation, for once desertion is proved the deserting spouse, so long as she evinces no sincere intention to effect a reconciliation and return to the matrimonial home, is presumed to continue in desertion.

We have noted that the wife took the contention that she was willing to stay in a joint family. If this be so, then one of the main reason for acrimony between the parties would not exist and there was no reason for her not to return to her husband. We find that she has contended that she was harassed and ill-treated by the petitioner and his family members. Her contentions in this regard are vague. There is no date mentioned in respect of any particular incident of harassment. So also particulars of harassments are also not given. She had stated that she was never provided with any medical aid during her pregnancy. Apart from her bare statement, there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. It is noted that she had gone to her parents place at Borivali for delivery however, within two days she left for her uncle's place at Pune. In the police enquiry her own father had given a statement that his consent and permission was not taken for leaving his house at Borivali. We find no justification in the contention of the wife for staying at Pune with her maternal uncle, even though her husband had purchased a separate place for their exclusive residence. Such an act on her part of staying at Pune alongwith her newly born son does amount to both cruelty as well as desertion and no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

6. So far as question of maintenance is concerned, in view of our aforesaid finding, maintenance cannot be granted to the wife.

4. On 12th February 2004, Respondent No.2 was examined in chief in the maintenance petition. She stated: "I
was not working anywhere after my marriage, I was not working till today anywhere from the date when I
Crl.M.C.1130/08 Page 2 of 11 was kicked out from my matrimonial home." She was cross examined on 7th
April 2004 and was asked whether she was doing any job during the pendency of the petition. She replied that
"since after coming to my parental home, I am not doing any job. I have one bank account in Co- operative
Bank. It is incorrect to suggest that after coming to my parental home, I have worked with Tirath Ram Shah
Charitable Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi." In response to another specific question whether she was holding a
bank account at Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines she stated as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that I am holding an account which is 427791 in the above said
bank i.e., PNB"

5. Consequent upon the above replies in cross examination, the Petitioner filed an application under Section
340 CrPC seeking the prosecution of the Petitioner for committing perjury punishable under Section 193
CrPC.

6. It appears that a reply was filed to the said petition by Respondent No.2. Even evidence appears to have
been led by examining the officials from both the Punjab National Bank as well as the Tirath Ram Shah
Charitable Hospital.