Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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