#concealmentoffact

[seemabhatnagar]

Provision of Maintenance is not meant to create an army of idle people

Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse. 

The provision of maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as under Hindu Marriage Act is meant to prevent vagrancy and it is only in respect of people who are unable to maintain themselves.

ABC v. XYZ

Mat. Appeal (Family Court) 248/2019 & CM APPL.20720/2022

Before Delhi High Court

 An application under Section 24* of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the Wife (*Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses of proceedings) during the pendency of the trial in the divorce proceedings. Wife an highly educated woman who was M. Phil and was working at the time of marriage and was also pursuing Ph.D. Later she completed Ph.D. (Management).

Background

The couple got married in the year 2014 but had compatibility issue so they couldn’t continue with their marital relationship and the respondent Husband filed for divorce. The divorce petition was withdrawn in February 2016 by the husband as a settlement was arrived between the couple. But few months after the withdrawal of the divorce petition appellant wife filed complaint on 06.05.2016 before the police station and the husband thereafter filed the Second Divorce Petition on 24.05.2016 under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

 The Principal Judge Family Court dismissed the section 24 petition of the wife in August 2018. Feeling aggrieved wife filed appeal before the Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court remanded the matter back to the Principal Judge Family Court for re adjudication in March 2019.

 The principal Judge Family Court re adjudicated the matter a fresh considered her qualification and the fact that she has been working even after marriage declined the application for maintenance pendete lite and expenses of the proceedings in September 2019.

 Feeling aggrieved wife approached Delhi High Court in appeal praying for interim maintenance @ of Rs.35000 per month and Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses.

 Submission of the Respondent Husband

1.    Appellant is not unemployed. She is working in the office of MP Udit Raj. Respondent Husband submitted a CD which showed the wife working in the office and also signing the attendance register.

 2.    When appellant wife was confronted with this fact by the Court, she said her friend is working at the office of MP Udit Raj and she often goes to meet her friend and whenever she is on leave, she in order to help her works at office.

 Observation of the Family Court

1.    It is difficult to accept that a highly educated women is not working.

2.    More so, she has not disclosed about her charity work in at her friend’s office in her petition. This is concealment of fact.

3.    Further it is also difficult to accept that she is working for charity.

 Observation of the Delhi High Court

1.    The documents and the admissions made by the appellant clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is employed in the office of the M.P.

2.    This is a case where in addition to be qualified, the appellant has been working.

3.    There is no doubt a difference between “capacity” and “actual earning”, but here it is not a case where appellant had only the capacity but the document on record clearly points out that she has also been working.

4.    Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse. 

5.    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. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.

6.    The claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. 

 Order

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court Comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait J and Hon'ble Madam Justice Neena Bansal Krishna J didn’t find any merit in the Appeal & it was dismissed on September 12, 2023.

Seema Bhatnagar