is Hazari District Court at Delhi: Dismissing an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), a single bench comprising of Hon’ble Sujata Kohli, J refused interim maintenance to a woman stating that she was professionally more qualified than her estranged husband, and had failed to show why she didnt look for a job. The Court dismissed the womans plea after observing that she was a graduate from Delhi University, held a diploma in library science and was once employed as lab technician while her husband had only studied till higher secondary. Since the applicant herself had failed to disclose the reason for not doing any job in spite of being able bodied and educationally and professionally qualified; and much better qualified than the husband, she has failed to make out an entitlement for any interim maintenance for herself. Relying upon a judgment of the MP high court in Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 11(2000) DMC 170, the Court reiterated that a woman who is fighting a matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband during pendency of such petition. Taking note of the legislative intent of Section 24 of HMA, the Court held that the said provision is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a dole to be awarded by their husband who had gone to the Court for seeking a relief against his wife. [Sunil Kumar v. Santosh, HMA 374 of 2012, decided on 6th November, 2013]
Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:09:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015