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 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