Ex-wife now working, but court asks man to pay alimony

A Delhi court has ordered a man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife though it has found that she is capable of earning enough money for herself and is better educated than her former husband. The court ruled that after her divorce in 2003, the woman had no means to support herself and it was on this basis that the amount of maintenance should be decided. Petitioner told the court that she had married a P D draftsman in 2002, and though her family had given a substantial dowry her husband!s family continuously harassed her for more. "he alleged that her husband!s family was cruel to her and her husband suspected her of having an affair with her brother#in#law. "he was forced to leave her marital home in 2003, and since then her husband had not paid her a single penny by way of maintenance, the petitioner said. "ince then, she had completed her $$% degree from a &oida#based institution, was now an advocate, and was also enrolled in a company secretary course. 'n response, the husband said that the woman had left him without any cause and that he had made several attempts to bring her bac(. )e said she was running a computer education centre, from which she was earning about *s 30,000 per month and used to give tuitions to students up to +lass ,. )e said "ule(ha!s financial status was strong and thus, he wasn!t entitled to pay any maintenance to her.

Supreme Court of India: No alimony for woman w o desert usband!

'n an observation with far#reaching implications, the "upreme +ourt has said that a woman who deserted her husband and the matrimonial home and refused to return despite repeated re-uests was not entitled to maintenance. .pholding a decision of the Pun/ab and )aryana )igh +ourt, a bench headed by 0ustice 1 " "irpur(ar said the law of the land did not allow maintenance in cases where the wife deserted her husband, children and the matrimonial home. 'n the case before the Pun/ab and )aryana )igh +ourt, Poonam, who was married to 2ahender 3umar of 0ind on 0anuary 23, 4552, left her matrimonial home on 2arch 46, 4556, alleging harassment and dowry demands. "he also left her children. Poonam later moved the family court, see(ing divorce on grounds of cruelty. %ut 2ahender 3umar filed an application before the court on 7ebruary 20, 2002, praying for restoration of con/ugal rights under the )indu 2arriage Act. "he did not respond to the application, and 3umar was granted e8 parte decree as it was construed that Poonam would not return to her matrimonial home.

7resh appeal Two years later, Poonam approached the family court again, see(ing divorce 9 on the ground that she was living separately 9 and demanding maintenance. Though the court granted her divorce, her appeal for maintenance was turned down. The "upreme +ourt bench said: ;<ou left the matrimonial home on your own, and now you want maintenance. 's this the law of the country= hat is the /ustification for your staying separately=> &o ill#treatment hen the case reached the "upreme +ourt, Poonam challenged the Pun/ab and )aryana )igh +ourt?s decision, see(ing maintenance of *s @,000 per month from 2ahender. The high court /udgment said she had failed to prove that she was ill#treated by her former husband. Additionally, the court observed: ;7ailure of the petitioner#wife to /ustify her decision to stay away from the respondent#husband and two (ids shows that she had left society of the respondent on her own accord.>

"C gi#es $uslim woman maintenance under Cr%C

The Au/arat )igh +ourt on Tuesday ruled that a divorced 2uslim woman was entitled to maintenance under "ection 42B of the +ode of +riminal Procedure, and not under the 2uslim oman CProtection of *ights on DivorceD Act, 456E, because her maintenance application was filed when she was still married and that the said law applied only to divorced women. Fn 0anuary 34, 456E, when she first filed the maintenance application, <asmeen 3han was 45 years old, married and sub/ected to abuse by her husband. After two decades of legal struggle, the decision by the "ingle %ench on Tuesday means <asmeen, now divorced, would get close to *s @0,000, calculated at *s 4B0 per month. The 2uslim omen CProtection of *ights on DivorceD Act, was enacted in 2ay 456E in the wa(e of the "hah %ano /udgment upholding the right of 2uslim women to see( maintenance under the +rP+. The Act had diluted the "upreme +ourt /udgment and among other things stipulated that the maintenance to a divorced woman be given only during the period of iddat or till 50 days after the divorce according to the provisions of 'slamic law. Fn the other hand, "ection 42B of the +rP+, is the general provision for maintenance of wives, children and parents and applies to everyone irrespective of religion. The )igh +ourt said <asmeen was entitled to maintenance since 0anuary 456E when she filed the application and it would not be affected by her divorce nine months later in Fctober 456E because the litigation arising out of the maintenance application was still pending when the tala- had ta(en place. 7or <asmeen, the /udgment is a vindication for her demand for maintenance that has

been a -uestion of litigation since 0anuary 34, 456E, when the application under "ection 42B of the +r P+ was filed before the "abar(antha chief /udicial magistrate. The +02 had subse-uently ordered that a maintenance of *s 4B0 per month be paid to 3han. )owever, on her husband &iwaG 3han!s appeal, this was reversed by the Additional "essions 0udge on the grounds that no claim for maintenance would be tenable under "ection 42B of the +rP+ because the 2uslim omen CProtection of *ights on DivorceD Act was already in place. <asmeen had then approached the )igh +ourt through a criminal revision petition on 2arch 4@, 4566. Fn Tuesday, 0ustice D & Patel reversed this order and restored the ordered of the +02 and ordered that maintenance be paid to the woman effective from 456E to the present day.

Dhanan/ay 2ahapatra, T&& 0ul 23, 2044, 42.BEam '"T &H DH$)': 'n divorce cases, the courts must factor in the wife!s status and lifestyle while fi8ing alimony to ensure that she lives in reasonable comfort but should not grant an amount that would be repressive for the husband, the "upreme +ourt has ruled. IThe amount of maintenance fi8ed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband,I said a bench of 0ustices P "athasivam and % " +hauhan. %ut it struc( a balance too. IThe amount so fi8ed cannot be e8cessive or affect the living condition of the other party,I it said while as(ing an Air 'ndia commander to choose between paying a permanent one#time alimony of *s @0 la(h or *s @0,000 a month for the entire life of his e8#airhostess wife. The %ombay )igh +ourt had granted divorce by mutual consent on the terms that he either pay *s 20 la(h or *s 20,000 a month. )er counsel senior advocate &idesh Aupta argued that it was too little compared to the earnings of her estranged husband and the prospects of future promotion. Though senior advocate 'ndu 2alhotra argued that the former +athay Pacific airhostess had highly e8aggerated her e8#husband!s income, the bench said it could not be denied that the wife left her /ob after marriage at the instance of her husband. 't too( note of the facts ## husband was a senior commander, properties in his name, he being @2 years of age, future employment prospects, he had re#married having a child, had to loo( after his parents. I e feel that the ends of /ustice would be met by fi8ing maintenance at the rate of *s @0,000 per month instead of *s 20,000 per month. 'n the alternative, we fi8 the amount of permanent alimonyJmaintenance at *s @0 la(h in lumpsum to be paid by the respondent within a period of si8 months from August 4, which will forfeit all her claims,I it said.

SC links alimony to wife&s lifestyle

's( )* lak

alimony

The Delhi high court has ordered a vice president of one of world!s largest ban(ing firm to pay *s K0 la(h alimony to his estranged wife and their four#year#old daughter. The court noted the man abandoned his wife and daughter in 'ndia and led a lu8urious life in Dubai. Asho( Cname changedD and Asha Cname changedD got married in 2000 and started living in Dubai, where Asho( was heading the operation of a Dubai#based ban(ing firm. After some time, the couple got bac( to 'ndia where Asho( allegedly abandoned his wife and minor daughter. 'n 2006 Asha filed a petition in the court for grant of maintenance of herself and their daughter. 'nitially, a trial court granted maintenance of *60,000 per month in accordance to her husband!s earnings. %ut after a sessions court reduced the maintenance from *60,000 to *30,000 per month, Asha!s counsel Prabh/it 0auhar filed a petition in the Delhi high court. The counsel told the court that Asho( was concealing his true income and that he be told to submit his employer!s certificate along with his monthly earnings and his statement of ban( accounts for the past three years. The counsel also demanded that a statement stating how much bonus he received during these past years should be filed in the court. Asho(!s counsel 2alvi(a *a/(otia said there was no practice wherein the ban( could issue such a certificate. 0ustice A/it %hariho(e struc( down Asho(!s contention and directed him to file his employer certificate including the per(s and bonus accrued to him every year. %ut later, Asho( agreed to come to a mutual agreement. 'n an in#chamber proceeding, he agreed to pay *s. K0 la(h as alimony to the wife and daughter.

*A3H") %)AT&AAA*, T&& Dec 46, 200@, 04.05am '"T

&H DH$)': The "upreme +ourt has ruled that though bigamy may be illegal under )indu law, such a marriage can!t be declared immoral and the !illegal! wife cannot be denied alimony. The ruling came with the ape8 court legitimising the maintenance claim of a )indu wife whose marriage was declared illegal on grounds that it was bigamy. The court said her husband was liable to pay alimony to her and maintenance for their children. I3eeping into consideration the present state of the statutory )indu law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the )indu 2arriage Act, but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially wea( and economically dependent,I said a %ench of 0ustices D 2 Dharmadhi(ari and ) 3 "ema on separate appeals by the litigating couple.

&Illegal& wife is entitled to alimony: SC

hile the husband, a lawyer, challenged the 2adhya Pradesh high court order as(ing him to pay *s 3,000 as maintenance for his !wife! and their daughter, the wife had challenged dissolution of the marriage on the grounds that it was a bigamous alliance. *e/ecting the woman!s petition, the %ench upheld dissolution of her marriage because it was bigamy and, therefore, illegal. )owever, invo(ing section 2B of the +ode of +riminal Procedure, the court as(ed the husband to pay alimony to the aggrieved wife and daughter. IThe facts of the present case fully /ustify grant of maintenance both to the wife and the daughter,I the %ench added. &oting that after the second marriage, the couple lived as husband and wife and they had a considerably long married life of about nine years, the court directed the husband to pay arrears of maintenance running into over *s 4 la(h.

+ourt decides woman!s plea for alimony in 24 yrs, rules delay

&ew Delhi, "ep 46 CPT'D C2044D *uing the snail!s pace of wor( in /udiciary, a Delhi court has re/ected a 24#year#old plea by a woman for alimony from her husband, who was already married and his first was wife still alive. The court!s order came on the plea by a +hirag Delhi resident woman, married in 456K to an erstwhile Delhi Hlectricity "upply .nderta(ing contractor, who already had his first wife living. 'n her plea, the woman said she came to (now of the man!s first marriage two years later after the birth of her daughter in 4565. "ince then she had been living separately from him as he had also begun to torture her for bringing insufficient dowry. I+onsidering the admission of the woman in light of the law laid down by the ape8 court, she cannot be considered as legally wedded wife for the purpose of granting maintenance to her as she does not fall within the definition of IwifeI as envisaged in section 42B +rP+. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance in the present case,I the court said. )owever, 2etropolitan 2agistrate Priya 2ahendra as(ed the man to pay *s 4,000 as maintenance to the daughter, born to his second wife, saying even an illegitimate child has a right to claim maintenance from hisJher father under "ection 42B of +rP+. The /udge, while pronouncing the order, cited the ape8 court!s /udgment that marriage of a woman in accordance with )indu rites and ceremonies with a man already having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to get benefit of maintenance.

No alimony for wife earning well

Published: 2onday, "ep 22, 2006, 3:30 '"T %y *a(esh %hatnagar )igh +ourt denies monthly compensation to a woman ma(ing *s 60,000 a month

&H DH$)'L A woman earning sufficient income is not entitled to maintenance from her estranged husband, the Delhi high court has ruled. The observation came while the high court set aside a family courts order granting *sKB00 monthly maintenance in a matrimonial dispute to a woman earning *s60,000 a month. According to a "upreme +ourt ruling, a woman is entitled to maintenance if her independent income is insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to while living with her husband. The Delhi high court accepted the woman!s *s60,000 monthly income as sufficient for self#maintenance. here a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. )owever, where the wife and husband both are earning and having good salary, an order is not re-uired, 0ustice " & Dhingra said while allowing the aggrieved husband!s petition. The husband, "atish 3umar Cname changedD, had contended that the family court wrongly granted maintenance to his wife "unita Cname changedD despite the fact that her income was sufficient for self#maintenance and she did not have any other responsibility. The court accepted "unitas salary slip of 7ebruary 200K that shows her gross monthly salary as *s60,000. A person who is earning this much of salary can very well maintain herself with such a standard which may be envy of many and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the income earned by her was not enough to maintain herself, the )+ observed. Harlier, while dealing with a similar dispute, the "upreme +ourt had ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if her independent income or earnings as a single woman are insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to whilst living with her husband. A deserted wife or divorced woman need not be reduced to a destitute state before filing for maintenance for herself and her children under "ection 42B of the +riminal Procedure +ode C+rP+D, an ape8 court bench of 0ustices Ari/it Pasayat and Aftab Alam had observed. H8plaining the phrase unable to maintain herself, the ape8 court said:...it would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and not the efforts made by her after the desertion. This e8pression, the /udges said, does not imply that the wife should be destitute before she can apply for maintenance. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain her in the way she was used to in the place of her husband, the ape8 court had said. Hlaborating it by an e8ample, the ape8 court had said where a wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. 't can also not be said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not ma(ing an effort to earn. hether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself or not has to be decided on the basis of the material placed

on record.

's( +* t ousand per mont : ,oman gets w opping alimony

Published: "aturday, Dec @, 2040, 4@:26 '"T %y &i(un/ "oni M Place: Ahmedabad M Agency: D&A *upees forty thousand as interim alimony. That, too, every month. This amount may sound too big, but Au/arat )igh +ourt has recently as(ed a man to pay this to his estranged wife. The high court is hearing a case of matrimonial dispute between a rich and highly educated young couple who parted ways /ust 42 days after their marriage in 200K. 0ustice A(il 3ureshi of the high court passed the order (eeping in mind the hefty income of the man, who earns more than *s20 la(h a year. According to the court order, the man has to pay*s2B,000 for the maintenance of the woman C"eemaD and *s4B,000 as house rent if "eema resides in a separate rented house and gives proof to that effect. As the story goes, the man CParinD, who is a graduate from the 'ndian 'nstitute of Technology C''TD and has done research in computer science in the ."A, and "eema, an 2%A, tied the (not in &ovember 200K.)owever, "eema parted ways with Parin after 42 days of their marriage. This too( place at Ahmedabad airport after they returned from their honeymoon in 2alaysia. "eema alleged before the police and the court that her in#laws started harassing her from day one for not having brought huge dowry and that Parin had compelled her to watch perverse videos on his palmtop and act accordingly during their honeymoon. "eema and her family filed a series of complaints before police alleging dowry harassment, and also as(ing for return of her belongings gifted during the marriage. "he also filed a petition to get alimony from her husband who was getting a hefty pay pac(age of around *s24 la(h a year. "eema approached Au/arat high court when the lower court approved an alimony of only *sB,000 as Parin did not show his income proof. hen the case came up for hearing before the high court, Parin, after much reluctance, furnished 'ncome Ta8 C'#TD returns of three previous years. According to the returns, in the assessment year 200E#0K, Parin had disclosed a gross income of *sK,5@,220 and paid ta8 of *s4,64,2B0. 'n 200K#06, he disclosed a gross income of *s5,54,E34 and paid ta8 of *s2,2B,E5@ while in 2006#05, he had earned a total income of *s24,B@,E22 and paid ta8 of *s@,E4,B@B. +ountering the claim for alimony, Parin informed the court that due to fre-uent complaints by "eema to his employers, he had lost /obs and that he had no /ob at present. ;Hven "eema is doing a /ob and earns *s20,000 a month,> he told the court.

%ut /ustice 3ureshi noted in the order: ;The latest income of the husband, on record, e8ceeds *s4.2B la(h per month. )e is a highly -ualified engineer, which holds considerable mar(et value. 'n addition to being an engineer from ''T, he also had e8posure and -ualification in the filed of computer science, abroad. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he is not employed.> 2eanwhile, another application moved by "eema for further investigation into the dowry case and return of gifts is pending before the high court. hile "eema?s father has written letters to different forums, alleging that a retired 'P" officer is harassing them and influencing the investigation, Parin?s family has written a letter to the &ational )uman *ights +ommission C&)*+D citing that the girl?s family and the police are harassing them for undue reasons. C&ames and place have been changed to protect identityD

$an buys car, "C says pay more alimony

T&& Aug 40, 2044, 0@.36am '"T A)2HDA%AD: A division bench of the Au/arat high court turned down a man!s plea to scale down the alimony to his estranged wife, after it learnt that the man had bought a lu8ury car. Dharmesh Desai!s wife )etal had moved the family court in "urat see(ing divorce in 2005 and sought maintenance. The court as(ed Desai to give her *s 3,000 every month till the divorce was settled. )etal found the amount meager and moved the high court. The single#/udge bench too( up the case and increased the maintenance amount from *s 3,000 to *s K,B00. )owever, the high court too( notice of the fact that the lower court did not as( Desai to pay a penny to couple!s daughter, who was studying in +lass ,''. The high court on its own decided for fi8 the amount and accordingly as(ed Desai to pay *s 40,000 every month towards the girl!s education. Desai, who owns two shops in "urat and is engaged in the business of home appliances, challenged this order of payment of *s 4K,B00 every month before a division bench stating that this amount is too much for him. )e argued that the high court awarded maintenance amount for the daughter, event though his wife did not see( it before the trial court. During the proceeding, Desai proposed one time settlement at payment of *s 6 la(h on condition that his wife would withdraw all cases and the divorce petition would be converted to the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The woman agreed, but in the ne8t proceeding Desai!s counsel told the court that she would not be withdrawing from the case because the man had gone bac( on his word. Another lawyer appeared for Desai and argued that he did not have sufficient income to pay a huge amount to his separated wife and daughter. 'n the meanwhile, it was brought to the court!s notice that Desai had /ust purchased a brand new car worth *s E la(h. This led the division bench to dismiss his appeal with observation that if he could

buy a car, he could pay for her minor daughter!s education that is costly these days.

P 3 ".*H&D*A&, T&& &ov 45, 200@, 0B.34pm '"T T)'*.1A&A&T)AP.*A2: A landmar( ruling in 2uslim wives! welfare, the 3erala )igh +ourt on Thursday, pronounced that a 2uslim woman, even if remarried, was entitled to monetary relief from her former husband. The Division %ench comprising 0ustice 2r 2 *amachandran and 0ustice 2r 2 "asidharan &ambiar observed that under the +rP+ a remarried divorcee was not eligible for alimony but under the 2uslim women CProtection of *ights ActD 456E "ec#A, remarriage was never mentioned a situation. According to it, the 2uslim wife, who either divorced her husband on her own or was abandoned by the husband, must start getting alimony from the 'ddat period of three months. *emarriage is not considered in the Act. Delay in getting relief from the man is an offence and she could approach the magisterial court. The case came up when A Abdul )amid of 3asaragode filed an appeal against the /udgment in this regard of 3oGhi(ode 0udicial 7irst class 2agistrate.

$uslim wife entitled for alimony

"C refuses alimony to &con#erted& woman

T&& Aug 4@, 2040, 02.@@am '"T &H DH$)': The Delhi )igh +ourt has refused to grant maintenance to a 2uslim woman who allegedly married a )indu and then separated, saying there was no proof she had converted to )induism and hence wasn!t eligible for alimony under the )indu marriage Act. 0ustice 3ailash Aambhir, while dismissing two petitions from "alma Cname changedD who claimed she had converted before getting married according to )indu rituals, e8pressed concern over how religious conversions were increasingly being done to Ireap benefits or manoeuvre the law!!. I*eligious conversions... are increasingly used for anything but the primary reason: spiritual advancement. The basic focus to convert from one religion to another is to see( Aod from another platform, but unfortunately today proselytiGation is being done for reaping benefits and in cases li(e the present one, as an afterthought to manoeuvre the law,!! 0ustice Aambhir observed. The court recommended that the legislature frame laws in this regard so that controversy and court battles arising out of problems over a convert!s religious status in matrimonial cases is reduced.

'n her appeals before )+, "alma had sought permanent alimony and maintenance under the )indu 2arriage Act along with divorce from her estranged husband. %ut she failed to prove she had converted from )induism and that she had lawfully married according to )indu rites and ceremonies. ondering how she could claim the right to divorce her husband and alimony when it wasn!t even proved that she was a )indu, the court refused to grant her any relief. "alma had claimed in court that she met "unil Cname changedD at wor( and the two got married in accordance with )indu rites at an Arya "ama/ temple in 4566. "he said trouble began when "unil insisted that she abort their child and then allegedly married another woman. "unil maintained that "alma had never converted to )induism nor did he marry her. )e also denied all allegations of cruelty levelled against him.

-limony for remarried $uslim women: "C

T&& &ov 20, 200@, 42.@0am '"T T)'*.1A&A&T)AP.*A2: A landmar( ruling in 2uslim wives! welfare, the 3erala )igh +ourt on Thursday, pronounced that a 2uslim woman, even if remarried, was entitled to monetary relief from her former husband. The division bench comprising 0ustice 2 *amachandran and 0ustice 2 "asidharan &ambiar observed that under the +rP+ a remarried divorcee was not eligible for alimony but under the 2uslim women CProtection of *ights ActD 456E "ec#A, remarriage was never mentioned a situation. According to it, the 2uslim wife, who either divorced her husband on her own or abandoned by the husband, must start getting alimony from the 'ddat period of three months. *emarraige is not considered in the Act. Delay in getting relief from the man is an offence and she could approach the magisterial court. The case came up when A Abdul )amid of 3asaragode filed an appeal against the /udgement in this regard of 3oGhi(ode 0udicial 7irst class 2agistrate.

$uslim law won&t

inder alimony claims: "C

T&& Apr 42, 2040, 0@.0Bam '"T A)2HDA%AD: The special law for divorced 2uslim women will not come in the way if a divorcee see(s alimony from her e8#husband and the man is liable to maintain the wife till she remarries, the Au/arat )igh +ourt ruled in a 4B#year#old dispute of maintenance between a separated couple. 'n this nearly two#decade of litigation in 1alsad, 7arida sought alimony from her e8# husband "hau-at Nureshi in 4552. "he sought maintenance as per the provisions of

"ection 42B of +riminal Procedure +ode C+rP+D claiming that her period of iddat was over. )er application was re/ected by a /udicial magistrate on the ground that she was a divorced 2uslim woman and she could claim maintenance only under the 2uslim omen CProtection of *ights on DivorceD Act, 456E, and not under provisions of the +rP+. 7arida challenged this decision before the sessions court, and the /udge -uashed the magistrate!s order and as(ed the magisterial court to hear her case again in 455B. This order in favour of 7arida led her former husband to move the high court with claims that his separate wife could not apply for alimony under +rP+, particularly when there is a special legal provision for divorced 2uslim women. After hearing the case, 0ustice A$ Dave observed that the sessions /udge was right in as(ing the lower court to hear the case again. The high court cited a "upreme +ourt decision in '-bal %ano case, wherein it was ruled in 200K that if a divorced 2uslim woman applies for alimony under +rP+, it is open to the court to treat it as an application under the 2uslim omen Act. %esides this, 0ustice Dave also noted that the "+ in "habana %ano case this year has ta(en a view that even a divorced 2uslim woman is entitled to claim alimony from her former husband as long as she does not remarry. IAnd this being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced woman,I with this observation the high court opined that 7arida can see( alimony under +rP+ after the period of iddat was over following her divorce.

$uslim women entitled to alimony

Published: "aturday, Dec B, 2005, 4:2K '"T %y *a(esh %hatnagar M Place: &ew Delhi M Agency: D&A "ending out a clear message that the law does not discriminate on the basis of religion, caste or creed, the "upreme +ourt C"+D held on 7riday that a 2uslim woman, li(e women from all other communities, was entitled to alimony under section 42B of the +ode of +riminal Procedure C+rP+D. )er plea to see( alimony is maintainable even after the completion of iddat, provided she doesn?t remarry, the court ruled. C'ddat is a period of waiting 'slam has imposed on women who have been divorced or whose husbands have died. During this period, a new marriage is not permissible. The period, three months after a divorce and four months and 40 days after the death of a spouse.D A 2uslim woman would be entitled to maintenance from her divorced husband as long as she doesn?t remarry, a bench of /ustices % "udershan *eddy and Deepa( 1erma asserted while allowing the plea of "hah %ano. %ano was aggrieved by the 2adhya Pradesh high court /udgment that recorded her estranged husband 'mran 3han?s statement that since he had divorced her under the

2uslim law tala-, tala-, tala- five years ago, she was entitled to limited alimony till iddat. %ano married 'mran according to 2uslim rites in Awalior in 2004. hen she became pregnant, she returned to her parents house and gave birth to a child. "ince even after delivery, 'mran didn?t ta(e her bac(, she was constrained to file a petition under section 42B +rP+. "he said since 'mran was earning *s42,000 a month and she had no source of income, *s3,000 be paid to her as alimony. 'mran contested saying since he had divorced her in 200@ in accordance with the 2uslim law, she couldn,t claim maintenance under +rP+. )e said she could see( remedy under the provisions of the 2uslim omen CProtection of *ights on DivorceD Act, 456E, that barred maintenance after iddat. The family court partially allowed %ano?s plea and as(ed 'mran to pay *s2,000 a month from 200@. The high court, however, overturned the /udgment.

Jobless spouse need not pay alimony: Delhi HC

The Delhi )igh +ourt on 7riday, August 2K, 2040 said that an unemployed man cannot be forced to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, after noting that in an era of gender e-uality, a person cannot be compelled to maintain others if spouses are on an e-ual footing. 0ustice "hiv &arayan Dhingra said, ;.nder prevalent laws, a husband is supposed to maintain his /obless spouse out of the income he earns. &o law provides that a husband has to maintain his wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not.> hile setting aside the order of a family court, the court said, ;The court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to his wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost -ualified and capable of earning and when both of them claim to be gainfully employed before marriage.> Harlier, the family court had directed that the husband, who is unemployed, is supposed to pay maintenance of B,000 to his wife. The court said that the wife, who is e-ually -ualified as her husband and was wor(ing in an 2&+, cannot as( for maintenance from her /obless husband. hile granting relief to the husband who was an &*' wor(ing in Angola in Africa, the court said, ;"ince both are on e-ual footing, one cannot be as(ed to maintain the other unless one is unemployed and the other is

employed.> The court also said that the +onstitution provides e-ual treatment to all irrespective of se8, caste and creed. An unemployed husband who is holding an 2%A degree cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife who is also holding an 2%A degree. 7iling a petition challenging the family court?s 7ebruary 2006 order, 2r "an/ay %hardwa/, an &*', said he was wor(ing as a "ales 2anager in $uanda, capital of Angola. )e came to 'ndia for marriage with another 2%A graduate in 2ay 200K and his married life had lasted only for three wee(s. "ource: Deccan +hronicle