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 and Employed Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that a highly qualified wife who is capable of earning and has not truthfully disclosed her employment status is not entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, and it was pronounced on September 12, 2023.

The appellant, Niharika Ghosh, had appealed against an order denying her maintenance, originally passed by the Principal Judge of Family Courts. Ghosh, who holds a Ph.D. in Management and has professional qualifications in Computers, claimed she was unemployed and sought maintenance from her husband, Shankar Ghosh.

The Court made several critical observations regarding the appellant's employment status and qualifications. "It is difficult to accept that a person who is so highly qualified would not be working and it is even more difficult to accept that she would be working for charity," the Court observed.

Another significant observation was regarding truthful disclosure. "A party’s failure to disclose true facts about employment can have a significant bearing on the adjudication for maintenance," stated the judgment.

The Court also cited previous judgments, including Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal and Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, to support its decision. These cases also declined maintenance to spouses with significant qualifications and earning capacities.

In light of the observations, Delhi High Court held , "We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact, she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that a person with such qualifications and earning potential is not entitled to maintenance.

 Date of Decision: 12 September, 2023

XXX VS XXX

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/XXX_VS_XXX_12Sep23_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News