Bombay High Court: While setting aside the order passed by Family Court, the bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that mere possession of qualifications by wife who is admittedly not employed, cannot ipso facto be a reason to deny interim maintenance.
Background
In the case at hand, the petitioner had filed a petition before Family Court seeking annulment of marriage and grant of interim maintenance. The Family Court denied interim maintenance on the ground that the petitioner possesses higher qualifications. The petitioner challenged the order of Family Court before this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
The counsel of the petitioner contented that mere possession of qualifications by the petitioner cannot be a reason for denial of interim maintenance in the light of the position that the petitioner is jobless. To support his contention the counsel relied on Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent:
The counsel of the respondent relied on Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 SCC OnLine MP 580 and contended that if the wife is having ability and capability to earn, but sits ideal, she cannot be awarded maintenance.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that in Mamta Jaiswal, (supra), the wife sought enhancement of compensation which is different from the case at hand. Thus, it cannot be said to have laid down a law that a wife is not entitled for any maintenance merely on account of possession of higher qualifications.
Placing reliance on Shailja (supra), the Court held there is a clear distinction between capability to earn and actually earning.
The Court further held that mere possession of qualifications by wife who is admittedly not employed, cannot ipso facto be a reason to deny interim maintenance altogether.
The Court awarded interim maintenance to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court and directed respondent to pay arrears of maintenance to petitioner within a period of two months.
The Court further directed the Family Court to make an endeavour to decide the petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months.
[Aboli alias Yugandhara v. Tejpal, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6071, decided on 23-11-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner:- Advocate S. V. Deshmukh;
Counsel for Respondent:- Advocate A. A. Nimbalkar.
