Rejecting the claim of a woman engineer seeking monthly maintenance from her husband, the civil judge cited another judgement observing that Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not meant for creating an army of idle persons who want to sit idle waiting for the ‘dole’ from husbands. The court observed that it is not proper to sit idle when someone is well qualified and capable and added that the petitioner was spoiling her bright future by doing so.
The woman had contended that owing to various cases filed by her software techie husband, she had resigned from her job and is now dependent on her parents.
Civil judge (senior division) R K Shaikh rejected the woman’s plaint after her husband produced her salary statements and her investments, indicating that she was working and at the same time seeking alimony.
Anita Mishra (all names changed to protect identities) had moved her plaint under relevant sections of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for Rs 20,000 and Rs 15,000 monthly maintenance for her and their son respectively. Her husband Anil had moved his submission through his lawyer Devanand Dhokane.
Anita had claimed that she was compelled to quit her job as there were cases filed by her and Anil in Kolhapur, Haryana and the Supreme Court and she has to attend the court proceedings. She had stated that her expenses were increasing and often she borrowed money from her parents and relatives. She also claimed that Anil is drawing Rs 1.50 lakh salary and both were joint owners of their flat in Hinjewadi and thus she is entitled to share the rent.
In his say, Anil replied, “After divorce, Anita worked with a Magarpatta-based IT company and now she is working with another international IT company based in Hinjewadi. This has been proved by the provident fund (PF) transferred by her former employer to the present company. She earns well and her income tax returns show she has invested in insurance policies. Besides, their son is going to a school where the monthly fee is only Rs 300.”
Judge Shaikh observed, “Anita’s investments and savings reflect that she is not dependent but her son. Considering the interest and welfare of the child, both parents have equal obligation and responsibility to maintain their child properly.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}