[ MyNation ] An educated woman who is capable of maintaining herself but quits her job voluntarily, is not entitled to alimony from her estranged husband, the Delhi High Court has held.

[mohd]

http://www.siasat.com/english/news/woman-quiting-job-wilfully-not-entitled-alimony-hc
 
New Delhi, June 01:

An educated woman who is capable of maintaining herself but quits her job voluntarily, is not entitled to alimony from her estranged husband, the Delhi High Court has held.
Justice Pratibha Rani dismissed the woman's plea, which had challenged a lower court's order denying her maintenance on the ground that she was well-qualified and working in the past, but had quit her job out of her own free will.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jbghose]

Dear friends,
   Can anyone give the citation of the case.
   Jaya Brata Ghose

--- In [hidden email], mohd taqi <mohdtaqi22@...> wrote:

>
> http://www.siasat.com/english/news/woman-quiting-job-wilfully-not-entitled-alimony-hc
>  
> New Delhi, June 01:
>
> An educated woman who is capable of maintaining herself but quits her job voluntarily, is not entitled to alimony from her estranged husband, the Delhi High Court has held.
> Justice Pratibha Rani dismissed the woman's plea, which had challenged a lower court's order denying her maintenance on the ground that she was well-qualified and working in the past, but had quit her job out of her own free will.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[CHETAN S]

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRL.REV.P. 344/2011)

RESERVED ON : 19.04.2012
PRONOUNCED ON: 14.05.2012

DAMANREET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sugam Puri, Advocate

versus

INDERMEET JUNEJA & ANR ..... Respondents*

Through: Mr.Shyam Moorjani with
Mr.Taru Goomber, Mr.Pankaj Mendiratta
and Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Advocates.

*CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI*

1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition impugning the order
dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The
petitioner is wife of respondent Indermeet Juneja. She filed a complaint
case bearing No.352/3 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 alongwith an application for monetary relief under
Section 23 of the Act. Her prayer for interim monetary relief was declined
vide order dated 18.11.2010 by the learned M.M.

2. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred an appeal against the said order passed
by the learned M.M. declining monetary relief to her. In appeal, the
learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 though declined the
prayer of interim monetary relief to the petitioner, partly allowed the
appeal and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month
from the date of filing of the petition towards contribution of the
respondent to maintain the child born out of the wedlock of the parties.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ committed an
error in declining the relief to her on the ground that she was well
qualified, capable to maintain herself and had the capacity to work and
that she had also been actually earning in the past and was thus not
entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent. The petitioner has
submitted that earlier she was working with Met Life Insurance Company
since the birth of her child. The company due to its relocation process had
asked the petitioner to shift to Bangalore. She could not accept this offer
as it would not be appropriate for the child to be uprooted from the place
where she has been residing and due to the fact that there were visitation
orders passed by the learned Sessions Court and had the petitioner along
with the child shifted to Bangalore, the said orders could not have been
complied with. As such the petitioner turned down the offer of the company.
The company refused to change its policy and the petitioner was forced to
resign from her job.

4. The relieving letter placed on record by the petitioner is dated
17.08.2010. As per this relieving letter the date of joining of the
petitioner with Met Life was 07.01.2008 and her designation at the time of
leaving the company was Assistant Manager (Service Delivery). She has been
relieved pursuant to her resignation letter dated 17.06.2010. This letter
is not accompanied by the resignation letter of the petitioner giving the
reasons for her resignation or the policy of the company to shift her to
Bangalore. It is relevant to mention here that while the date of joining of
petitioner with Met Life Insurance is 07.01.2008, the petitioner has given
birth to a female child on 18.09.2008 i.e. in the same year and despite
having infant child to take care, she has served the company till she was
relieved on 17.08.2010.

5. The contention of petitioner is that in order to comply with the order
of the Court to allow the respondent to have visitation right she could not
shift to Bangalore. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any
point of time despite continuous litigation going on between the parties
she had approached the Court for modification of the order regarding
visitation right. If the petitioner of her own prefers to resign, she
cannot take shelter under the Court order regarding visitation right. With
the passage of time the child has grown up and is of school going age.
Thus, it is more convenient for a working mother to be in the job then to
sit at home.

6. 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.

7. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has also corrected the error
appearing in the order of learned M.M declining the monetary relief to the
child for the reason that she was not the petitioner before the Court. In
para-10 of the impugned order, the learned ASJ, after considering the facts
and relevant case law has concluded as under:-

"10. On perusal of record and after hearing the submissions made at bar, I
do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as regards maintenance to
the appellant/wife is concerned. The question, whether appellant/wife was
forced to resign or she had resigned herself is a question to be considered
by the court during trial and also the question whether the reasons given
by her for resigning were satisfactory or not. These are the question to be
gone into during evidence by the Learned Trial Court. But, the observation
of the Learned Trial Court in para-10 i.e. "As far as the maintenance of
the child is concerned, since she is not the petitioner in the present
complaint, I would not be able to pass any orders as regards the
maintenance for the daughter of the parties", is erroneous and cannot be
sustained. Admittedly on the date, when application u/s. 12 of the "act"
was filed by the appellant/wife, child was in the custody of the husband.
Secondly, if the scheme of the act is seen as a whole, it is obvious that
it is not necessary that the child should be impleaded as a party. Relief
can be granted to the child or for the benefit of the child without child
being impleaded as a party. The relief can be granted not only to the
aggrieved person, but also to the "child". On reading of Section 20 and 21
of the "Act" it is clear that not only aggrieved person, but any child or
children may be granted relief. The court has to keep in mind the interest
and the welfare of the child, even if child is not a party. Therefore,
orders as regard custody or the maintenance or the welfare of the
"children" can be passed even if child is
not a party in the application filed under the "Act" before Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. There is manifest error in the impugned order as
regards the observations in para-10 of the impugned order, which is set
aside. In view of this, it is directed that Learned Trial Court shall
decide the quantum of maintenance for the minor daughter of the parties
after making a realistic assessment of the needs of child, keeping in view
the status of parties, on the basis of material placed on record by the
parties. Respondent/husband submitted that he was ready and willing to bear
50% of expenditure of the child. He can show his bonafide by providing some
assistance to the child so that the child is brought up in an appropriate
atmosphere and so that she is provided with minimum comfort, which the
child requires.

11. In the circumstances, till further orders are passed by the Learned
Trial Court, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to direct the
respondent/husband to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards his
contribution from the date of filing of the petition to maintain the child.
The amount ordered to be paid by respondent/husband shall not tantamount to
be an expression on merits of the case. Appeal stands disposed of
accordingly. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File be
consigned to Record Room."

8. In 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
Azad Education 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.

In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs.800/- per
month as pendent lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of being
reimbursed from husband whenever she makes up a trip to Indore from Pusad,
Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is
well qualified woman once upon time obviously serving as lecturer in
Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village?
Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master"s
degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education, would not feel herself
alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when at least a bus service is
available as mode of transport. The submission made on behalf of Mamta, the
wife, is not palatable and digestible. This smells of oblique intention of
putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be
discouraged."

9. Section 20 (1) (d) of PWDV Act, 2005 specifies that upon appropriate
proof, the court may order the respondent to pay maintenance to the
aggrieved person and to her children and further permits the Court to pass
an order of maintenance under the PWDVA in addition to maintenance already
granted under section 125 Cr.P.C.

10. In State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 it
was held that powers of the revisional courts are very limited and the
revisional court should not interfere unless there is a jurisdictional
error or an error of law is noticed.

11. 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.

12. It is worth mentioning here that the child for which maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition has been
ordered by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is just and fair and sufficient to
meet the requirements of a child which is aged about 3 1/2 years.

13. There is no jurisdictional error or error in law in the impugned order.
The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE

MAY 14, 2012/"dc"
On 3 June 2012 22:10, jbghose <[hidden email]> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear friends,
> Can anyone give the citation of the case.
> Jaya Brata Ghose
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], mohd taqi <mohdtaqi22@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> http://www.siasat.com/english/news/woman-quiting-job-wilfully-not-entitled-alimony-hc
> >
> > New Delhi, June 01:
> >
> > An educated woman who is capable of maintaining herself but quits her
> job voluntarily, is not entitled to alimony from her estranged husband, the
> Delhi High Court has held.
> > Justice Pratibha Rani dismissed the woman's plea, which had challenged a
> lower court's order denying her maintenance on the ground that she was
> well-qualified and working in the past, but had quit her job out of her own
> free will.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]