{"id":308653,"date":"2023-12-07T15:30:32","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T10:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=308653"},"modified":"2023-12-11T15:04:57","modified_gmt":"2023-12-11T09:34:57","slug":"wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Section 19(3)<\/a> of Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> and Section 28<\/a> of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (‘the Act’) against the Family Court order dated 06-04-2023 whereby pendente lite<\/span> maintenance of the appellant-wife was declined and respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month for maintenance of the minor child, the Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta*<\/span>, JJ., modified the impugned order and opined that the wife was entitled to maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month apart from the maintenance amount of child, i.e., Rs. 20,000.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

In the instant case, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02-09-2000 and a girl child was born from the wedlock on 10-12-2010. The wife alleged that the husband treated her with cruelty, deserted her, and constrained her to live separately since December 2013 and thus, she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the Act. The wife also filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs. 75,000 per month for herself and her minor daughter. The husband agreed to give divorce to the wife on mutual consent. Thereafter the husband remained absent and thus, the husband was proceeded ex parte.<\/p>\n

The wife held a degree in LLB, MBA and was professionally qualified in Gems and Gemology. She owned a business named IDT Laboratory with a part-time work. The net worth of the business was disclosed as Rs. 15 lakhs with a gross profit of Rs. 4 lakhs per annum. The wife also claimed rental income of Rs. 15,000 and apart from above-mentioned incomes, she held four FDRs amounting to Rs. 4,26,021 approximately. Further, the wife claimed a monthly expenditure of Rs. 1,18,633 including Rs. 36,606 for her child’s education, stationery, and entertainment. Also, the wife filed an affidavit where the husband’s monthly income was claimed to be at least Rs. 2 lakhs.<\/p>\n

The husband was proceeded ex-parte and the Judge, Family Court passed a decree for divorce but denied maintenance pendente lite and held that the wife was capable of maintaining herself. Further, the husband’s income, who was a practicing advocate was assessed by the Family Court to be not less than Rs. 1 lakh per month and considering Rs. 36,066 to be the monthly expenditure of child who was joint liability of both parties, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month towards maintenance of the minor child. The wife was granted litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Rajnesh<\/span> v. Neha<\/span>, (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/a> and opined that that there was no straitjacket mechanism for fixing the quantum of maintenance and relevant factors for deciding it were the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the wife was educated and professionally qualified, whether the wife had any independent source of income, whether the income was sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, whether the wife was employed prior to her marriage, whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage, whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing and looking after adult members of the family.<\/p>\n

The Court noted the status of parties along with the standard of living in the matrimonial home and income of husband who was a practicing advocate for 20 Years. The Court further observed that based on the above-mentioned parameters for the determination of maintenance, the amount should be reasonable and realistic. The wife was also entitled to enjoy the same amenities as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that merely because the wife was earning, her right to get maintenance would not be barred. The parameters for the decision were whether her income was sufficient to maintain herself and her child, duration of marriage and conduct of parties. The Court also observed that the obligation of husband to provide maintenance was on higher pedestal than wife since the provision for grant of maintenance\/interim maintenance for women and children in the concerned statutes, i.e., Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a>; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>; or Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/a>, was keeping in perspective the principle under Article 15(3)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court modified Family Court’s order and held that the wife was also entitled to maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month apart from the maintenance of Rs. 20,000 for her minor child and further directed the husband to clear the arrears of maintenance.<\/p>\n

[Nidhi Sudan v. Manish Kumar Khanna, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7652<\/a>, decided on 04-12-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant: T. S. Ahuja, Varun Singh Ahuja and Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Maintenance pendente lite\/permanent alimony u\/s 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 may be claimed by either wife or husband. The phrase “sufficient for her or his support” has to be interpreted to mean that applicant is able to maintain with reasonable comfort and standard of living which applicant was accustomed in matrimonial home.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2749,2543,55286,44596,3374,2863,31576,63306,63305],"class_list":["post-308653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bar","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-determination","tag-earning","tag-family_court","tag-maintenance","tag-minor-child","tag-parameters","tag-standard-of-living"],"yoast_head":"\nWife not barred from maintenance u\/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her earning status: Delhi HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-07T10:00:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-12-11T09:34:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Wife not barred from maintenance u\/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her earning status: Delhi HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-07T10:00:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-12-11T09:34:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Wife not barred from maintenance u\/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her earning status: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-07T10:00:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-12-11T09:34:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/","name":"Wife not barred from maintenance u\/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her earning status: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-12-07T10:00:32+00:00","dateModified":"2023-12-11T09:34:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Delhi High Court while modifying Family Court order held that only because wife was earning, she was not barred to receive maintenance from her husband.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-because-of-her-earning-status-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Merely because wife is earning, does not automatically operate as absolute bar for awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":218674,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/27\/raj-hc-wife-earning-a-certain-amount-will-not-absolve-husbands-liability-to-provide-maintenance-under-s-24-hma-act-1955\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":0},"title":"Raj HC |\u00a0Wife earning a certain amount will not absolve husband’s liability to provide maintenance under S. 24 HMA Act, 1955","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Mohammad Rafiq and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by an aggrieved husband stating that, \u201cEven if the wife earns a certain amount, that does not absolve the husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":200908,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/30\/husband-not-allowed-to-take-benefit-of-non-disclosure-of-income-and-defeat-legitimate-right-of-wife-no-reduction-in-amount-of-maintenance-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":1},"title":"Husband not allowed to take benefit of non-disclosure of income and defeat legitimate right of wife; no reduction in amount of maintenance: Delhi HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and G.S. Sistani, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the husband against the award of maintenance pendente lite awarded to the wife by the family court. The instant appeal was filed by the husband under Section 19 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":243444,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/05\/del-hc-can-an-application-under-s-24-hma-survive-beyond-dismissal-of-the-main-divorce-proceeding-read-why-hc-dismissed-the-applicant-for-maintenance-pendente-lite\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Can an application under S. 24 HMA survive beyond dismissal of the main divorce proceeding? Read why HC dismissed the application for maintenance pendente lite","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., dismissed an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on finding no interest in the same by the wife. Petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce from his wife. To which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":212443,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/27\/del-hc-s-24-hma-not-meant-to-equalise-income-of-wife-with-that-of-husband-wife-cannot-convert-husbands-income-in-indian-currency-and-seek-enhancement\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | S. 24 HMA not meant to equalise income of wife with that of husband; wife cannot convert husband’s income in Indian currency and seek enhancement","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Bench of Jyoti Singh and G.S. Sistani, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the family court rejecting the appellant-wife's\u00a0application for grant of maintenance pendente\u00a0lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1951. The parties married to each-other in June 2012 and had been\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":274508,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/26\/evidence-not-adduced-maintenance-application-not-decided-bombay-high-court-remands-divorce-matter-to-family-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":4},"title":"Evidence not adduced; Maintenance application not decided: Bombay High Court remands divorce matter to Family Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Bombay High Court: In a case filed by a wife (\u2018appellant') challenging the Family Court order that granted decree of divorce without giving her opportunity to adduce evidence and without deciding her interim application for maintenance, a Division Bench of A S Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi Phalke, JJ.,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256682,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/03\/maintenance-overlapping-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":308653,"position":5},"title":"Maintenance & Overlapping Jurisdiction | Maintenance can be claimed under DV Act even if already granted under S. 125 CrPC: Del HC reiterates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., reversed the order of the trial court as it dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act only on the basis that it had been filed towards execution of maintenance already granted. Instant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=308653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=308653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=308653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=308653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}