In recent divorce cases, courts,
deviating from the norm, have been denying maintenance to the wife if she is
capable of earning or was earning in the past. There are also cases of the wife
being asked to pay maintenance to the husband.
The husband paying maintenance to
the wife is the textbook model for divorce proceedings. However, in a recently
developed trend, the courts have been denying maintenance to the wife if she is
capable of earning or was earning in the past. There have also been cases where
the court, instead of going the conventional way, has told the wife to pay
maintenance to the husband. Even the wives, in a hurry to end the marriage as
soon as possible, are opting for out-of-court settlements and paying the
husbands a permanent alimony.
Maintenance Plea by the wife
rejected
In a recent judgement, a trial
court in Delhi denied the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her husband.
It was reported that the trial court dismissed the woman's plea seeking
residential maintenance from her estranged husband, and observed that no
financial assistance can be provided to a woman if she earns as much as her
husband. Anuradha Shukla Bharadwaj, additional sessions judge, observed,
"In the era of gender equality, bias cannot be shown to one gender and
discretionary relief of financial assistance cannot be granted to wives despite
their capability to earn as much as their husbands."
The court, reportedly, said that
rental maintenance would have been awarded to the wife had she proved that she
was incapable of arranging an accommodation for herself. However, in this case,
she was living with her mother.
Although uncommon, it is not the
first time that a court has denied maintenance to the wife. There have been
several cases where the court has supported the husband and denied the wife's
plea for maintenance. In a case, "The husband was an NRI from the UK and
the wife was working with a multinational bank here in Delhi, and she was
drawing a salary of `60,000-70,000. They had a troubled marriage so the wife
filed for divorce. She asked for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, from her husband, stating that he was quite rich.
However, her plea for maintenance was rejected and the court ruled that since
she was earning well, she didn't need her husband's money to survive, despite
the fact that he was quite well-off."
"A trend has developed
recently wherein the court is denying maintenance to the wife if she has
capability, capacity and past employment." Citing a case, he says,
"There was a case in which the wife was a dentist by profession and used
to be employed. However, at the time of divorce, she wasn't working and asked
for maintenance from her husband. But the court denied her maintenance because,
in this case, she had the capability and capacity, and was working in the past.
So, she could work again to support herself."
Family resource cake
It is not necessary that either
of the party has to pay maintenance to the other in divorce cases. "In 2004,
Justice Vikramjeet Sen of the Delhi High Court (as he then was) worked out a
formula involving a 'family resource cake' in order to provide maintenance to
even working wives. Justice Sen, in the said judgment, combined the income of
both the spouses, calling it the 'family resource cake.' Half of the 'cake' was
allocated to the husband to meet his expenses, and the other half to the wife
and children, for their maintenance. This method has been widely followed by
other courts in Delhi when awarding maintenance to either spouse."
Maintenance in favour of the
husband
Although in most cases, the wife
is awarded maintenance to enjoy the same lifestyle as that of the husband,
there are also instances where the reverse happens. Not only is the wife
refused maintenance, in many cases, she is also asked to pay maintenance to the
husband. In a case where the court granted maintenance to the husband,
the Court granted maintenance in favour of the husband, who was suffering from
a mental disorder, while the wife had a government job. The wife earned about
`20,000, and the husband was granted a maintenance of `2,000."
There was another case in which a
court passed a judgment supporting the plea of a husband who, under Section 24
of the HMA, wanted maintenance from his wife. The trial court directed the wife
to pay the husband `20,000 per month as maintenance, `10,000 as litigation
expenses and also to provide a car for him. This judgment was later challenged
in the High Court by the wife, but the HC also supported the judgment of the
trial court. The wife was running a paying guest facility while the husband was
unemployed.
The law which allows the husband
to seek maintenance from his wife
Husband can only seek maintenance
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. "Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, provides that the court, in case of either the wife or the
husband having no independent income sufficient for her or his support, may, on
the application of either of the spouses, order to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceedings and monthly expenses during the proceedings 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. So, under this section,
even the husband can file an application claiming maintenance pendent elite in
the pending divorce case. But the only pre-requisite is that he should not have
sufficient income to maintain and support self in consonance with the lifestyle
and income of the wife. Assuming the wife is earning much more than the
husband, the husband only in that eventuality shall have the locus to file for
maintenance."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Rich-wives-pay-alimony-to-hubbies-to-end-marriage-asap/articleshow/35114784.cms
