Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Highly Qualified Spouse Not Entitled to Maintenance”: Delhi High Court Upholds Family Court’s Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 12, 2023 – In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld a Family Court’s ruling that denied maintenance to a highly qualified spouse under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the court emphasized that “maintenance is not meant for those with high earning capacities.”

The appellant, identified as ABC, had sought interim maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 55,000/-. The appeal was filed against the Family Court’s order, which had declined her application for maintenance. She argued her case through Mr. Om Prakash Gulabani, while the respondent, known as XYZ, appeared in person.

The court observed that ABC is highly qualified, holding a Ph.D. in Management and professional qualifications in Computers. Moreover, the court noted her undisclosed employment status, stating, “Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”

Citing previous judgments, the High Court articulated that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is designed to support those who are “incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts” and is not intended to “create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse.”

High Court held that the appellant’s qualifications and capacity to earn disqualify her from receiving maintenance and thereby dismissed her appeal. This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications on maintenance claims, particularly involving well-qualified spouses.

Date of Decision: 12 September, 2023

ABC vs XYZ  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ABC_Vs_XYZ_12Sep23_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News