1. The supreme court is quite unanimous on the issue of entitlement of women which previously worked. Mere previous employment is no excuse.

2. You are silent on the qualification of the wife.

3. Mere qualification is enough . You have to show her present working status.

This is a principle that is not applicable across the board in all cases. The conduct of parties remains the deciding touchstone. If the wife has sound educational qualifications the husband may succeed to bring down the financial support but he cannot avoid it altogether. You can google judgments yourself though.

wife who is highly qualified has worked in past is not entitled to any alimony

2) n Smt.Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with identical situation observed that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced hereunder:-

"In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi AzadEducation College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service? It really put a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a „dole? to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ?dole? to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendent lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working hours

HE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

ROHINI COURT : DELHI

M No. 28/07

Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal – Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal – Respondent

ORDER

1.. This is an order on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant/ wife, respondent in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the non-applicant/ husband, petitioner in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) for grant of maintenance pendentelite and for litigation expenses.

2.. In the application it is stated that the applicant/ wife has no independent source of income and she is not given any kind of maintenance by the non-applicant/ husband to live her life properly and therefore she is facing much hardship in the life. The non-applicant/ husband has flatly refused to maintain her. The non-applicant/ husband is working in a private sector as a Senior Software Engineer HPC in STM Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 A, Knowledge Park-2 (near LG Gol Chakkar), Greater Noida and is earning about Rs. 80,000/-pm. He has no other liability and he is not discharging his responsibilities towards the applicant/ wife with ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/ husband and, thus, being a husband, he is bound to maintain the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is fully dependent on the mercy of her parents, who are having other liabilities also and she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It is, therefore, prayed that the non-applicant/ husband be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-pm as maintenance allowance pendentelite to the applicant/ wife and expenses of proceedings.

3.. The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated that the applicant/wife is a well qualified graduate Engineer in the field of information Technology and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome salary as initially she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Now-a-days she is competent and qualified to earn thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/ husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed by her for any purpose in any manner. It is not denied that the non-applicant/ husband is also a qualified engineer and is employed in Greater Noida, U.P. but the actual amount of monthly salary being drawn by him is Rs. 45,000/-pm. It is stated that he has to maintain his retired father and ailing, diabetic mother and old grandmother and also to treat his two married sisters and to look-after his younger unmarried under-education sister of marriageable age as his younger sister is doing B.Ed. from a regular college. He is also paying loan premiums and other household expenses. The applicant/ wife has herself deserted her matrimonial home without any threats or atrocities caused to her by her in-laws and she is not returning to her matrimonial home despite the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the non-applicant/ husband. It is stated that the non-applicant/ husband is publicly and openly as well as warmly welcoming the applicant/ wife to her matrimonial home but she has started demanding maintenance sitting in her parental home to feed her greedy parents and selfish relatives instead of returning to her matrimonial home and to assist the non-applicant/ husband and her other in-laws in her matrimonial home at the time of need. It is stated that the conduct, attitude and nature of the applicant/ wife is of such type that she is not entitled for any maintenance. Further more, she has also filed a separate petition U/s 125Cr. P.C. for maintenance only with a view to get the non-applicant/ husband harassed in a criminal court. It is stated that the applicant/ wife is not a helpless or poor lady and she is not incapable to maintain herself as she is a well qualified engineer and is already an earning hand. She is handing over all her income to her parents. She does not require any monastery assistance from the non-applicant/ husband as she is already having a good bank balance in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Rohini, Sector-5,Delhi , bearing A/c No. [deleted] and several other bank accounts also. She also has some immovable properties in her name. It is denied that she requires Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance and other charges as prayed. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost.

4.. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record.

5.. During the course of arguments it has not been denied by the Counsel for the applicant/ wife that the applicant/ wife herself is an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife joined the job for some time after the marriage but thereafter due to the marital disputes she is not in a position to pursue her job and has left the same. In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:-

“Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition.”

6.. In I (2001) DMC 19 titled Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal Vs. Sanjay Kumar Ratilal Jaiswal, Mehsana, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the wife is entitled for Free Legal Aid and therefore, the Court should keep in mind that wife is entitled for free legal services also.

7.. In the present case the applicant/ wife is a well qualified engineer and, therefore, there is no need for her to sit idle at home waiting for the maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the applicant/ wife is well qualified and, therefore, can earn handsome amount by working and there is no need for her to be financially dependent upon her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance. While hearing arguments on the application it was ordered that the maintenance shall be granted to the wife till the disposal of the petition. This sentence in order sheet dated 27.08.2007 only means that the wife is entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition and not thereafter. It no where reflects that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance I every case come what may.

8.. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the application U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act of the applicant/ wife is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in Open Court

Dated : 19.09.2007

In Family Law maintenance is often used as a synonym for spousal support or alimony, and the term is in fact replacing alimony. Traditionally, alimony was solely the right of the wife to be supported by the husband. The award of spousal maintenance is generally determined based on all or some of the following guidelines: the recipient's financial needs; the payer's ability to pay; the age and health of the parties; the standard of living the recipient became accustomed to during the marriage; the length of the marriage; each party's ability to earn and be self-supporting; and the recipient's nonmonetary contributions to the marriage.

As it becomes more commonplace for women to continue to work after marriage and children, spousal support per se becomes less common, notwithstanding disparity in income. Of course, if the disparity is large then that is a matter for argument before the court or for agreement as needs be.

The relief of maintenance is considered an ancillary relief and is available only upon filing for the main relief like divorce, restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation etc. Further, under matrimonial laws if the husband is ready to cohabit with the wife, generally, the claim of wife is defeated.

In Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, II (2000) DMC 170,

it was held that :-

“How such a lady can remain without service? It really puts

a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal

with sufficient, cogent and believable evidence by proving

that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not

able to get service and , therefore, she is unable to support

herself. A lady, who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for

divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden

on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from

him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section

24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons,

who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded

by her husband, who has got a grievance against her and

who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her.

The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well

qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his

burden on the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by

remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not

permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so

also does not want an army of self made lazy idles.

Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of

himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in

that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is

not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst

such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the

adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far

away after an emerging litigation. If such army is permitted

to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of

amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be

very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable

settlement because he would be reaping the money in the

nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be

happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself

for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself.

That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is

indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted

for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and

sufficient efforts are unable to support and maintain

themselves and are required to fight out the litigation

jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working

hours.

In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining

idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a

source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society

wants to progress. The spouses who are quarreling and

coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have

to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early

as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive

facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra

expenditure has to be discouraged”.

In Damanreet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja & Anr., 2013 [1] JCC

306, it was held that :-

“The learned ASJ has rightly declined the interim monetary

relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated

lady earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had chosen not to

work of her own will, though had the capacity to work and

find a suitable job for herself.

The learned ASJ in the impugned order has rightly

observed that the question whether the petitioner-wife was

forced to resign or had resigned herself is a question to be

considered during trial and also the question whether the

reasons given by her for resigning from her job were

satisfactory or not.”

Like wise there are various judgments to dismiss the alimony petition under the said ground.

Mr. Kalaiselvan,

I might be wrong but to me Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal and Damanreet Kaur v. Indermeet Juneja both appear to be cases for interim maintenance (i.e. while the divorce case is being decided). Could you please provide any citations involving alimony or permanent maintenance?

Your understanding is right though.

You can rely upon this judgment for section 25 too based on the facts decided in this case. You may not get a particular judgment suiting to your case especially from supreme court or high court so soon, it takes time to search.

N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CM(M) 1153/2008

KAVITA PRASAD ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv.

versus

RAM ASHRAY PRASAD ….. Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

O R D E R

01.10.2008

The petitioner who is an MBBS qualified Doctor and admittedly had been in practice before, claims

that she was sitting at home despite being a qualified Doctor and does not work. The petitioner

claimed maintenance against her husband who is in service. The Trial Court granted maintenance of

Rs.4,000/- per month. This petition is made against observation of the Trial Court that she was

working somewhere and earning around Rs.8,000 to 10,000/- PM and that the maintenance granted

by the Trial Court was made subject to adjustment of the maintenance being received by her under

Section 125. Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite

being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court

should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed

to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can

take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was

prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her

house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her

husband on the plea of being unemployed.

List on 23rd October, 2008.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J

Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 Mad 212, I (2003) DMC 799, (2003) 1 MLJ 752

Bench: P Sathasivam

Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy vs M. Devaki on 21/2/2003

ORDER

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Family Court, Madras dated 25-7-2002, made in I.A. No.

1058/2001 in O.P. No. 1310/2000, granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month and

litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-, the husband has preferred the above Revision under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

2. The petitioner/husband has preferred the said O.P. for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) and (1b) of the

Hindu Marriage Act. Pending the said petition, the wife/respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 1058/2001

claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said application was resisted by the husband stating that she

is working in a private concern and drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. It is also stated that he is

earning only Rs.2000/- per month. Before the Family Court, salary certificate of the husband dated 10-6-2002

has been marked as Ex.R-1. Based on Ex.R-1, after finding that he is earning Rs.70/- per day by working in

Senthil Auto Garage, the Family Court has concluded that the wife is entitled to interim maintenance at the

rate of Rs.750/- per month from the date of petition till the disposal of O.P. and also awarded Rs.1,500/-

towards litigation expenses.

3. The only question to be considered in this Revision is whether the wife/respondent herein has made out a

case for interim maintenance in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, after drawing my attention to Section 24 of the said

Act and the admission of the wife in the counter statement filed in the main petition viz., O.P. No. 1310/2000,

would contend that since she is earning sizeable income and in view of the fact that the petitioner/husband is

getting only Rs.2000/- per month, the Family Court has committed an error in granting interim maintenance

and litigation expenses.

5. There is no dispute that the petition has been filed by the respondent/wife claiming maintenance pendente

lite and expenses of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 24 reads thus:

"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceedings under this Act it

appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income

sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the

wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly

during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the

respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."

The above provision would show that for grant of maintenance pendente lite, the party should not have

sufficient independent income for her/his support. In other words, if it is found that the applicant has found

sufficient income for his/her support, no amount can be allowed as maintenance pendente lite as per Section

24 of the Act. While construing the very same provision in similar circumstance, A.S. Venkatachamoorthy, J.,

in KUMARESAN v. ASWATHI [(2002) 2 M.L.J. 760 has arrived a similar conclusion. Now I shall consider

whether the respondent/wife has any independent income which is sufficient for her survival and for the

proceedings. In para 10 of the counter statement filed by the wife in O.P. No. 1310/2000, she herself admittedhat,

.....Now the respondent (wife) had got her present job in private body and running her life with the salary and

staying with her brother...". The above statement shows that she is employed in a private concern, getting

salary and staying with her brother. In the application for interim maintenance, the husband has filed a counter

affidavit wherein he has specifically stated that his wife is drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- from a private

concern. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that,

"5. The respondent denies all the allegations in para 5 and put the petitioner strict proof of the same. The

averment about I am liberally suffering without financial assistants is put to strict proof since this petitioner is

working in the organization Kumari Neruvanam at No. 40, Venkat Narayanan Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600

017, and drawing a salary of Rs.4500/- she also disclosed this before the All Women Police Station, Thousand

Lights, and this petitioner also admitted in her counter statement that she is working in private and running her

life. But contradictory to her statement in counter statement now this petitioner come forward with a plea that

she is without financial assistance. This petitioner is working as typist and main organizer for a programme in

Neingalum Pachalar Agalam a programme telecaste in RAJ TV during Sunday 8.00 A.M, from her company

Kumari Neruvanam. The averment about that this respondent is owner of the "Venkataswari Turning Works"

at Muthumariamman Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 is put to strict proof since this respondent is

not the owner of the said company and A. Loganathan is the owner of the said Turning works and this

respondent is working in Senthil Auto Garage at Annai Sathya Nagar, Anna Nagar (East) Chennai-600 102,

and drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- and this respondent need not to give any monetary assistance to the

petitioner for her claim."

The above averment shows that the petitioner herein/husband is working in Senthil Auto Garage, Annai

Sathya Nagar, Chennai-102 and drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- per month. Likewise, it is also seen that the

respondent herein/wife is working in Raj T.V and drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/-. Though the said aspect has

not been substantiated, I have already referred to the admission of the respondent herein in her counter

statement filed in the main O.P.1310/2000 wherein she admitted that she secured a private job and is getting

salary and staying with her brother. On the other hand, it is established particularly from Ex. R-1, the

petitioner herein is getting only Rs.70/- per day or Rs.2000/- per month by working in Senthil Auto Garage. I

have already referred to the language used in Section 24 which makes it clear that for grant of maintenance

pendente lite the party should not have sufficient independent income for her support. In the light of the

materials available, particularly the admitted case of the respondent/wife, she is employed in a private Satelite

T.V. and earning for her livelihood staying with her brother, it cannot be construed that she is not having

sufficient independent income. The Family Court lost its sight to consider the above material aspect.

6. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the Principal Family Court dated 25-7-2002,

made in I.A. No. 1058/2001 in O.P. No. 1310/2000 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

costs. It is made clear that pending the divorce proceedings at any point of time if the applicant/wife

establishes that she has no sufficient independent income for her support, it is open to her to claim

maintenance pendente lite. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 16264/2002 is closed.

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981

Bench: K Manjunath

Dr. E. Shanthi vs Dr. H.K. Vasudev on 22/8/2005

ORDER

Manjunath, J.

1. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Both of them are Doctors by qualification. The respondent is

working as a Medical officer in a Government Hospital. The respondent has filed a divorce petition in MC.

No. 57/2001 on the file of the Family Court at Mysore. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming an interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ per

month and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. The said application is dismissed by the Trial Court on the

ground that the petitioner is also attending as a Doctor in "Hariharan Clinic", which according to the

respondent is a very famous clinic in Chennai. This order is called in question in this writ petition.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the name of the petitioner appears on the board of

Hariharan Clinic as one of the consulting Doctors and the said name appears along with her brother prior to

marriage and even though she is not practicing as a Doctor, her name on the board continuous and therefore,

petitioner is entitled for a separate maintenance.

3. Admittedly, petitioner is residing with her parents at Chennai and whose brother is also a doctor. When the

petitioner was practicing prior to marriage, when her name continuous on the board of the clinic, the Trial

Court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. There is no difficulty for the petitioner to work

as a Doctor. Even if the petitioner is not working as a doctor in the clinic of her brother, since there are no

impediments for her to work along with her brother as a doctor and when she is capable of earning, this Court

is of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. When the

petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and that when she was working as a doctor

prior to marriage, there cannot be any difficulty for her to continue the same profession. Therefore, Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot come to the aid of such persons. Accordingly, this petition has to be

rejected.

4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the Wed-lock parties have got a minor

daughter who is studying in school. When the parties are having a daughter out of their wedlock, it is the

responsibility of the father to maintain the child. Admittedly, the respondent is working as a Medical Officer

at Chamarajanagar, considering his salary and the fact that he has to maintain his aged parents, this Court

directs the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of filing of this petition

before this Court to maintain the child. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of

A wife who has left her employment to devote herself to her matrimony cannot be told by the court that she should work and earn herself as she has sound educational qualifications. The educational qualifications can only supplement the primary defence, it cannot substitute the primary defence of husband. These judgments that you are referring to are thrown in the dustbin after reading the headnotes thereof by the courts, something you will realise when your case goes to court.

1. One such citation is given below as desired by you:

"In Smt.MamtaJaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3)

MPLJ 100, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing

with identical situation observed that well qualified spouses

desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose

of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if

the society wants to progress. A spouse who is well qualified to

get the service immediately with less efforts is not

expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the

other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a

cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not

expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by

remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out

the adversary by implementing the provisions of law

suitable to their purpose".

1. If interim order for maintenance is not granted then it is not likely that permanent maintenance will be allowed,

2. So you can base your litigation plan/argument on the citation in connection with "Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal" case.