MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

“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