[Breaking] Husband not bound to provide maintenance to qualified wife

While considering a petition for maintenance ((Firdos Mohd. Shoeb Khan v. Mohd. Shoeb Mohd Salim Khan, decided on 20-02-2015, Family Court, Mumbai))under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Family Court at Mumbai held that, a wife who is well educated/qualified and capable ofearning livelihood cannot sit idle at home and claim maintenance.

While delivering the judgement it was observed by the court that, provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is widely misused in todays’ world. It was further observed by the court that, in those cases where the wife is well educated and qualified enough to earn her livelihood, one cannot impose burden on the husband to provide maintenance to such qualified wife who is just sitting idle at home.

While considering the present case, court observed that, the petitioner wife is a well-qualified and educated woman and capable enough to earn her livelihood. Hence, court considering the judgement inMamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal ((2000 (3) MPLJ 100)), rejected the petition filed by the wife and held that, the wife who is well qualified and claiming maintenance by sitting idle is not entitled to get maintenance.

It was a case, where the wife (petitioner) filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr. PC claiming maintenance from her husband. Though the court rejected the petition and the claim of the petitioner, court neither accepted the initial contentions of the respondent husband that, the petition for maintenance is not maintainable on the ground that, their marriage was dissolved by way of talaq.

Court further made it clear that, the term “wife” as mentioned under the Section 125 of Cr.PC is an inclusive term where it includes even a divorcee wife and the same is equally applicable to a Muslim women. However, the right to maintenance can be enjoyed only till her remarriage.

[Breaking] Wife cannot evict her husband from matrimonial home

Family court on Mumbai, while considering a wife’s interim application to evict her husband from the apartment where both of them were living along with their child on the ground that, she pays the equated monthly instalments (EMI) to repay the load held that;

if both contribute to the household, either this way or that way, a particular spouse cannot claim exclusive right, ownership or title in the household property, merely because either the property stands in her name or she has contributed financially“.

It was a case where, the wife prayed for an interim relief asking the husband to vacate the house on following grounds. Wife contented that, she is paying the EMI and she further alleged that, she is also a victim of cruelty. However, the respondent husband pleaded that, though wife pays the EMI, he spend around Rs. 90000/- per month towards the family expenses.

Court however, after considering the arguments from both the side, referred to a Bombay high court judgment, which observed that if a husband shows negative treatment like disturbing the matrimonial life and jeopardizing the safety and security of the spouse and children, then such an interim injunction could be granted. “No such contention is raised in this application. On the contrary, the grounds mentioned show that this is the normal bickering which occurs in an ill-tuned family“.

Court further observed that, husband’s absent-mindedness of not removing the key from the keyhole while entering the house would be an unintended nuisance to the wife, but it couldn’t be a ground for throwing him out of the house and not giving bath to a daughter cannot be a ground for the wife for excluding the husband from a property.

Court, however while rejecting the interim application of the wife advised the parents to keep peace for the child’s sake until the petition is decided.