Disabled man capable of getting job can't claim huge maintenance from estranged wife: HC





A man with a disability who does not take up a job despite being capable, is not entitled to a huge amount as maintenance from his estranged wife, the Bombay high court has ruled. Justice M S Sonak reduced the interim monthly maintenance granted to Pune resident Prakash Gijare, who is in a wheelchair, that is payable by his wife Seema, a theatre actor, to Rs 2,000.

“(Prakash) is in a position to take up suitable employment and the mere circumstance that he is not doing so, does not mean that the respondent is entitled to exorbitant maintenance from his wife,“ said the judge.

Prakash met with an accident in 2004 and has been in a wheelchair since then. His disability is certified at 51%, but the court noted that from the medical records, it can't be said that he is totally disabled from doing any work or that needs only bed rest. “He does appear to have exaggerated his position and such exaggeration might have nexus with the claim for maintenance which he has made against the wife,“ said the HC.

Seema's lawyer had brough evidence on record that he used to run computer classes from home. “Prakash is no doubt en titled to have his case evaluated with sensitivity , particularly considering his physical impa irment. But it must be noted that there is no need to encoura ge his conviction, that he is no at all obliged to make any efforts to earn any income and that it is the unconditional duty of his wife to go on providing with ma intenance,“ the HC said. Prakash and Seema got married in 2000, but started living separately from 2001. Seema sought divorce in 2002. After Prakash met with an accident in 2004, he filed a maintenance claim. In 2015, a family court, in an interim order, told Seema to pay maintenance ranging from Rs 3,000 to Rs 5,000 for different periods. Seema moved the HC claiming that she was unemployed and had to leave a job after Prakash and his mother created aruckus at her workplace.

(Couple's names changed to protect identity)

SOURCE::: Feb 04 2016 : The Times of India (Mumbai), p.2 

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexml=Disabled-man-capable-of-getting-job-cant-claim-04022016002020

‘No maintenance for wife who earns from investments’

Shibu Thomas TNN 

Mumbai: Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled. A division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh rejected an application by an Andheri resident, Sheela Sharma (61), who had sought Rs 15,000 as monthly maintenance from her husband, Nitin Sharma, who is based in Australia. 
    “It is a well-settled law that only a wife who has no sufficient permanent source of income can claim and get maintenance from her husband who has sufficient means,” said the judges. The Sharmas have a son and daughter who are married and settled abroad. The couple has been living separately since 2007. 
    The court pointed out that it had come in evidence that Sheela had invested Rs 50 lakh in fixed deposits and also made investments in mutual funds. She has also invested another Rs 2 lakh that she got from Nitin in a fixed deposit. She resides in a flat that she had bought with Nitin, who said she had exclusive possession of the house. This meant there was no rent to be paid. “It is seen that the wife is gettingover Rs 37,500 per month as interest. She has over Rs 50 lakh in the bank. In addition, (her) son is providing money for her maintenance and other expenses. No one is dependent,” said the judges. 
    Nitin had moved the court for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, which was dismissed by a family court. Meanwhile, Sheela too moved the court. The family court allowed her plea and granted the couple judicial separation and asked Nitin to pay Rs 25,000 as monthly maintenance. Nitin challenged the maintenance order and a single bench of the HC set it aside. Sheela then challenged the order and sought Rs 15,000 as maintenance. 
    (Names of the couple changed to protect identities)


Source::: The Times of India, 24-02-2014, p.5,   http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2014/02/24&PageLabel=5&EntityId=Ar00501&ViewMode=HTML

Estranged husband must pay home EMIs

Rebecca Samervel TNN 

Mumbai: Acity court has held that by not paying EMIs on a home loan, a man was denying his wife the right to reside in her house. The court ruled in favour of the woman whose estranged husband refused to pay the equated monthly instalments for a Sion flat on the grounds that she had thrown him out of the house and forced him to stay in his office. 
    “In this case, the petitioner is a housewife, the respondent (husband) is the sole breadwinner. By not paying EMIs, he has tightened the noose of the money purse. As he is the sole breadwinner, it is his primary responsibility to clear the loan,” the court said. 
    The court held that the right to reside in a matrimonial house is protected under section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It observed that the deprivation of an economic asset also amounted to economic abuse under the Act. 
    “The provisions ensure that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have a right to reside in the shared household whether or not she has any right, title, interest or beneficial interest in the same. It also provides that the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent,” the court said. 

Wife feared flat would be attached 
Mumbai: A city court has directed a man estranged from his wife to pay the overdue amount of Rs 2.83 lakh on his home loan and continue to pay the monthly EMI of Rs 27,000. The estranged couple have four children. The flat stood in the joint names of the couple. 
    In her application, the wife alleged that the bank had threatened to take harsh measures to recover the loan amount. In court, she also produced a notice which showed the status of the flat as a non-performing asset. Looking at the other contents of the notice, the court said that it confirmed the apprehensions of the woman that the property may be attached and sold for the recovery of the loanamount of Rs 25 lakh. 


Source::: The Times of India, 14-10-2013, p.01,  http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/10/14&PageLabel=1&EntityId=Ar00105&ViewMode=HTML