Court dismisses woman’s maintenance plea

For Sheena, concealing her income from a city court in a divorce matter proved costly as the court rejected her maintenance plea stating that it cannot allow the law to be used as a tool to get enriched unjustly at the expense of the spouse.
Additional District Judge (ADJ) Virender Bhatt rejected Sheena’s plea under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and said: “Details of her job as well as details of income from all sources have to be filed before the court. If it is found that the applicant has concealed the true nature of her job, the application becomes liable to be dismissed straightaway.”

“This section cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to get enriched unjustly at the expense of the other spouse,” the court said while hearing a divorce case involving Sheena and her husband Rahul.

The court also refused to revise a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500 granted to Sheena by another court, saying it was proper considering that the child’s mother was also earning.

Rahul had filed a divorce application on the grounds of his wife’s cruelty. During the proceedings, Sheena filed an application seeking maintenance for herself and her child from the marriage.

Sheena demanded a maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month for herself and Rs.8,000 for her daughter.

Counsel for Rahul, Prashant Mendiratta and Rajneesh Diwan, informed the court that Sheena had earlier approached another court under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance for herself and the child. The court awarded her a maintenance of Rs.2,500 per month.

Mendiratta said: “We informed the court that she is falsely stating that she is a nursery teacher on contract basis when the fact is that she is also working as an agent of Birla Sun Life Insurance from where she is earning Rs.45,000 per month.”

Countering the allegations, the woman told the ADJ that she had been an insurance agent but she left her job in January 2010.

Calling the woman’s claim as an eyewash, the court said her response was fabricated to mislead it and to counter her husband’s allegation.

“Rahul has to maintain his father who is 61 years of age and his mother is a patient of rheumatoid arthritis because of which the fingers of both the hands and feet have got completely deformed… she requires constant medical treatment and he being the only son cannot afford to overlook the responsibility,” Rahul’s counsel argued.