Interim Maintenance Arguments important judgments
Here are the few judgments which you must use to fight interim maintenance cases these judgments are handy.
Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal 2000 (4) MPHT 457 spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts are 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 pendente life 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 Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. vs The State & Anr. wherein while considering the provisions relating to maintenance under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and other prevalent laws like Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), it was held that, “a husband is supposed to maintain his un- earning spouse out of the income which he earns. No law provides that a husband must maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell ask husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage”.
In Sakarben Shambhubhai Rabari & vs Shambhubhai MasharubhaiRabari while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to take into account not only the needs of person who claims maintenance but also the capacity, status, commitments and the obligations of person who has to pay it. If the husband has to maintain other persons like his parents, etc. reasonable allowance for their maintenance shall have to be made. It would be unjust to grant maintenance in an arbitrary manner. The party who has to pay maintenance is also not to be virtually rendered a destitute. A fair balancing of all the relevant factors is to be done by the Courts without making an emotional approach to the problem. The court shall have to keep in mind that what is to be provided is the
maintenance and it cannot have saving element in it nor is it the purpose of the legislature to put the claimant in a luxurious position. The definition of maintenance given by the Act makes this position amply clear.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain held
The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court.
By-: Advocate Nitish Banka