NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU v. SHANKAR GHOSH, Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, wife, married the respondent, husband, on 21.04.2014. Due to incompatibility and differences, their matrimonial relationship deteriorated, leading the respondent to file a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant resigned from her job on 22.05.2015 after the divorce petition was filed. The parties initially settled amicably, resulting in the withdrawal of the divorce petition on 06.02.2016. However, a police complaint filed by the appellant on 06.05.2016 indicated continuing discord. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second divorce petition on 24.05.2016. During the trial, the appellant filed an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed on 08.08.2018. An appeal was preferred, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on 28.03.2019. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, after reconsideration, dismissed the maintenance application again on 03.09.2019, prompting the present appeal by the appellant seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant, being a highly qualified and employed spouse, is entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act despite her earning capacity and employment status.

The scope and applicability of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in cases where the spouse claiming maintenance is capable of self-support through employment or earning capacity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant sought interim maintenance of Rs.35,000 per month and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000, implying a claim based on her inability to support herself after leaving her job.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent asserted that the appellant was employed in the office of M.P. Udit Raj and thus not unemployed as claimed.

Supported his claim by producing a CD showing the appellant working and marking attendance at the said office, challenging the appellant’s claim of unemployment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100	Section 24 is intended to provide monetary assistance only to spouses incapable of self-support despite sincere efforts; it is not meant to support idle persons seeking maintenance without effort.	The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that a well-qualified spouse who is capable of earning and not incapacitated is not entitled to maintenance under Section 24.
Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 2016 (234) DLT 693	Maintenance under Section 24 is not warranted for a well-qualified spouse with earning capacity; the Court deprecated claims by such spouses seeking maintenance.	The Court applied this principle to the facts, underscoring that the appellant's earning capacity and employment negated entitlement to maintenance.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100

Section 24 is intended to provide monetary assistance only to spouses incapable of self-support despite sincere efforts; it is not meant to support idle persons seeking maintenance without effort.

The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that a well-qualified spouse who is capable of earning and not incapacitated is not entitled to maintenance under Section 24.

Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 2016 (234) DLT 693

Maintenance under Section 24 is not warranted for a well-qualified spouse with earning capacity; the Court deprecated claims by such spouses seeking maintenance.

The Court applied this principle to the facts, underscoring that the appellant's earning capacity and employment negated entitlement to maintenance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the appellant’s qualifications and employment history, noting she was an M.Phil at marriage and had completed a Ph.D. in Management, alongside professional computer qualifications. The appellant was employed at the time of marriage earning Rs.12,000 per month but resigned post-divorce petition. The respondent produced evidence (a CD and attendance register) showing the appellant working in the office of M.P. Udit Raj, which the appellant initially denied but later explained as occasional assistance while visiting a friend. The Court found the appellant’s initial non-disclosure and subsequent admission problematic and accepted the respondent’s evidence as proof of employment.

The Court distinguished between mere capacity to earn and actual earning, concluding that in this case the appellant was not only capable but also earning. It cited precedents emphasizing that Section 24 maintenance is designed to assist spouses unable to support themselves despite sincere efforts and is not meant to support those who are qualified and employed. The Court found that the appellant’s claim was inconsistent with her employment status and earning capacity, and that she was not entitled to maintenance.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant’s maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, finding no merit in the claim due to the appellant’s qualifications, employment, and earning capacity. The pending application was also disposed of accordingly. This decision directly affects the parties by denying maintenance to the appellant and does not establish any new precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding maintenance claims by employed and qualified spouses.

NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU v. SHANKAR GHOSH

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2019 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 21^st August, 2023 Pronounced on: 12^th September, 2023 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 248/2019 & CM APPL.20720/2022 NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Om Prakash Gulabani, Advocate with appellant in person. versus

SHANKAR GHOSH ..... Respondent Through: Respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

1. The appellant/ wife has challenged the Order dated 03.09.2019 of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, dismissing her application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The appellant/ wife had got married to the respondent/ husband on 21.04.2014, but on account of incompatibility and differences, they were not able to continue in their matrimonial relationship leading to filing of a Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) by the respondent/husband. The

appellant was working till then, but after the filing of the Divorce Petition she resigned from her job on 22.05.2015. The matter was amicably settled and the Divorce Petition was withdrawn on 06.02.2016. However, a police complaint was filed by the appellant on 06.05.2016 thereby reflecting that the parties were unable to settle in their matrimonial relationship.

3. The Respondent filed the second Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 against the appellant on 24.05.2016. During the trial the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of HMA which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2018. Aggrieved an appeal was preferred before this Court and the matter was remanded back for re- adjudication vide Order dated 28.03.2019.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court considered the matter afresh and observing qualifications of the appellant and also that she had been working even after the marriage, declined to grant her any pendent lite maintenance vide Order dated 03.09.2019. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ wife who has sought interim maintenance @ Rs.35,000/- per month in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

5. Submissions heard.

6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was M. Phil at the time of her marriage and was pursuing Ph.D which she has completed and is now having the qualification of Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in Computers. While on the other hand the respondent is a simple graduate. It is also not denied that appellant was working at the

time of her marriage at a Diamond Jewellery Showroom and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. She had left her job since she was unable to attend her office since 22.05.2015.

7. From the submissions it is evident that not only is the appellant highly qualified but had been working even at the time of her marriage.

8. The second aspect of significance is that the respondent had claimed that the appellant is working in the office of M.P. Udit Raj in Connaught Place and her claim that she is unemployed, is incorrect. In support of his assertions he had relied upon a CD showing the appellant working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and also marking her attendance in the Register. The appellant who had initially taken a stand that she was not working, when confronted with this CD, gave an explanation that she has a friend working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and at times when she goes to visit her friend, she also looks after the office work.

9. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly observed that the appellant had initially failed to disclose that she was working even if not regularly or for charity as claimed by her. She had failed to disclose any of these facts and was compelled to do so after the filing of the application under Section 151 CPC and the CD. It was also observed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court that it is difficult to accept that a person who is so highly qualified would not be working and it is even more difficult to accept that she would be working for charity.

10. We on the facts as narrated above, agree with the conclusions of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts that the appellant not only is a highly qualified lady, but has been working even at the time of her

marriage and thereafter. The documents and the admissions made by the appellant clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is employed in the office of the M.P. It is no doubt that merely because a person is qualified she must be compelled to work, but here is a case where in addition to be qualified, the appellant has been working. There is no doubt a difference between "capacity" and "actual earning", but here it is not a case where appellant had only the capacity but the document on record clearly point out that she has also been working.

11. Similar facts as in hand were considered in the case of Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 to observed that Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to either spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts. However, the law does not expect persons engaged in the legal battles to remain idle solely with the objective of squeezing out money from the opposite party. Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse. In the said case finding that the lady was very well qualified, declined to grant any maintenance.

12. Likewise, in the case of Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta 2016 (234) DLT 693, Division Bench of this Court deprecated the claim of maintenance under Section 24 of HMA by a well qualified spouse having an earning capacity.

13. We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true

income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance. Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is hereby dismissed.

14. The pending application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023

MAT.APP.(F.C.)-248/2019

NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU v. SHANKAR GHOSH

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU v. SHANKAR GHOSH

Comments