A lot of you are worried about the maintenance cases and How much the court will award maintenance to wife and how much you have to pay the maintenance amount. Truth is no one wants to pay maintenance to wife who had left on her own. Now alleging domestic violence. But we have the law right..

But in some cases like this one the maintenance awarded was zero and wife interim application under section 23 of DV act was dismissed

In my recent case, The court awarded Zero maintainance.

How you can implement this strategy in your case.

For Zero maintenance a wife should not have child at first otherwise this strategy can help to reduce maintenance not Zero maintenance.

Now the most difficult path comes in that is that you should able to provide wife various bank account/income statements..

At least basic information like account detail and statement of account should be provided..

Once the same is provided to you do not collect that documents directly from bank.

Apply using 91 Application and get these documents on record…

This is the best way to get all documents…on record…

In this Judgement of our client..Interim order was passed for dismissal of the interim application…

Court found out wife is capable of earning and had transactions of 11 lakh in her account in a 3 year long period. In her income affidavit she has mentioned that she is unemployed and no source of income.She has shown her expenses to be around Rs. 35k per month but then she has failed to disclose from where she is getting those expenses met.

There is no child and she is not suffering from any disability of her own. The husband liabilities and salary was also considered in this case and court found out that the wife is capable of working and yet she is not working and further she has not disclosed the source of income and hence dismissed the application of wife and zero maintainance was awarded

Get the Judgement Copy Here

In another case . Wife was working in some company and has not disclosed the same to the court. We filed section 91 application in which we called upon the documents of her employment and she disclosed to the court that she is working and earning an income.

During interim maintenance arguments we pressed for this that wife despite being employed did not revealed her income as per the income affidavit and this is an active concealment. which was recorded in the order.

The judge dismissed interim maintenance of wife.

ZERO MAINTAINANCE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

Bombay High Court Maintainance Reduced Case Study:

1. Background: The wife, despite being a government teacher earning around ₹50,000 per month, was suffering from cancer. The trial court had awarded her ₹40,000 per month as maintenance, considering her medical expenses.
2. Appeals Process: The husband lost the appeal before the session court and approached the Bombay High Court seeking a reduction in the maintenance amount.
3. Arguments Before Bombay High Court:

• I argued that the maintenance awarded was excessive considering the wife’s income and actual medical expenses.
• I emphasized that maintenance should be fair and reasonable, and access to it should not be exploited.
• I pointed out that the husband was entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses, but due to defaults on the wife’s side, this hadn’t been realized.

1. High Court Decision:

• The judge acknowledged the sensitivity of the wife’s condition but recognized the need for a fair maintenance arrangement.
• The court adjusted the maintenance amount based on the actual medical bills provided by the wife.
• Instead of a fixed ₹40,000 per month, the maintenance was now aligned with the medical expenses, effectively reducing it by ₹25,000 per month.
• Arrears of maintenance were to be paid based on the bills produced by the wife, resulting in significant savings for the client (husband) in the range of ₹10-12 lakhs.

1. Result: The maintenance amount was reduced in accordance with actual medical expenses, and the husband was entitled to reimbursement. Both parties were expected to cooperate in the reimbursement process. With Reimbursement the effective maintenance is reduced to 0.

Maintenance Reduced to 50%

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reduced the maintenance awarded to the wife from ₹60,000 to ₹30,000 per month. This decision was based on the trial court’s failure to consider various deductions in the husband’s salary, as well as referencing the judgment of Rajnesh versus Neha. The court highlighted the need for the husband to maintain a similar lifestyle amidst heavy inflation and suggested that maintenance shouldn’t be excessive. Therefore, the court reduced the maintenance by 50% in this case.

Maintenance Denied to Wife as she is qualified

The KKD court denied maintenance to the wife because she concealed from the court that she was CTET qualified and was working at Delhi University. Despite citing the need to care for her one-and-a-half-year-old child as a reason for not working, her failure to disclose her qualifications and previous employment led to the denial of maintenance. Only ₹8500 was awarded for the child’s maintenance.

The non-disclosure of qualifications and previous employment presented a significant problem for the wife. In this case, if all arguments were considered, the judge would have passed an order ranging from ₹40,000 to ₹50,000, which was not done. This decision was made in the KKD Courts, Delhi.

In maintenance cases, it is often advised by legal professionals that if a wife seeks higher maintenance, she should either not disclose her income or claim that she is unable to maintain herself. Another strategy used is resigning from a job under the pretext of needing to care for the child.

Now, the question arises: when such facts are presented before the judge, where the wife claims she is unable to maintain herself but is, in fact, earning, what should the husband do to reduce or even eliminate the maintenance obligation? Let us analyze this through our own case studies and the recent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court passed on September 10, 2024.

Strategy for the Husband:

If the wife claims she is not earning, but the husband is aware that she is, and he knows her employer’s details, the right strategy is to gather and present this evidence in court. Here’s a step-by-step approach:

1. File an Application under Section 94 BNS (previously Section 91 CrPC):
   The husband should file an application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (BNS) to request the court to summon the relevant documents. This includes employment details such as salary slips, appointment letters, and other proofs of income. The court will then direct the wife or her employer to disclose these details.
2. Disclosure by the Wife:
   Ideally, the wife will disclose that she is employed, working at a specific company, and earning a monthly salary. When such an application is filed, she will also be required to provide salary documents to the court.
3. When the Wife Has Resigned from a Job:
   In cases where the wife has resigned, it becomes crucial to present evidence regarding her qualifications and prior income. The husband must demonstrate that there was no valid reason for her to quit her job. For example, in one of our cases at Rohini Court, the wife claimed she was not earning and needed maintenance for herself and the child. However, we produced documents showing that she was previously working from home, earning a decent income through consultancy. By presenting diary entries and account statements reflecting her income, the court was convinced to reduce maintenance solely to cover the child’s expenses while denying maintenance for the wife.

Recent Judgment (Shikha vs. Avaneesh Mahodaya, 10.09.2024 – MPHC)

In a recent judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 10, 2024, the court addressed the issue of whether well-qualified spouses should receive maintenance if they are capable of earning. The court held that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was not intended to create a class of idle people waiting for maintenance from their spouse.

The case involved a wife who held a Master’s degree in Commerce and had completed a Shipping and Trading Diploma Course. The court noted that she had the capacity to earn a good income, and therefore, exorbitant maintenance should not be awarded. The judgment emphasized that a qualified spouse is capable of supporting themselves and should not depend entirely on their partner’s income.

The court further stated that neither a married woman living separately nor one receiving maintenance from her husband is barred from pursuing employment or earning a livelihood. This ruling aligns with the general principle that a capable spouse should not remain idle and expect lifelong maintenance.

Key Takeaways:

1. Section 94 BNS is a powerful tool to compel disclosure of employment details and income.
2. Evidence of qualifications and prior income can help show that the wife has the capacity to earn, even if she is currently unemployed.
3. Courts are increasingly reluctant to award maintenance to qualified, capable individuals who can sustain themselves.

By adopting these strategies and leveraging recent judicial precedents, husbands can effectively challenge inflated or unjustified maintenance claims.