Click the Play button to listen to article

A Bengaluru Sessions Court has held that husband relying on documents such as the LinkedIn profile and Facebook profile photos of his estranged wife as proof to show that she is working in private company, is not enough to claim that she has sufficient enough and is thus not entitled to maintenance from him. 

The court said that even if it is presumed that the woman has joined a job that is also not enough to claim that she has sufficient income to maintain herself and her child.

The court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru Mohan Prabhu MA held:

"I have appreciated the rival contentions and perused the entire records. Admittedly, as on the date of filing of this petition, the petitioner was unemployed and not havingany job. Even in the assets and liability statement of the respondent, he neither mentioned that she is having any job and earning any income or having any exclusive properties soas to earn income. Thus one thing is very clear that the petitioner was unemployed.

The trial court records show that while addressing the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has produced certain photographs, LinkedIn profile and Facebook profile photos, and contended that the petitioner is working in. The learned counsel for the respondent not submitted what was the actual income of the petitioner by doing the job in private limited company. The learned magistrate rightly held that the documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of arguments cannot be relied. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has joined some job after 2023, then also it cannot be held that the petitioner is having sufficient income so as to maintain herself and her child". 

The court was hearing a matrimonial dispute wherein the wife had file an appeal seeking modification of magistrate court's order and had sought grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1 Lakh per month in view of her financial dependency and life style. She also sought confirmation of maintenance to the minor child at Rs.15,000 per month and education expenses of Rs.1,60,000 p.a. as already directed by the Trial Court. She had also sought compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for physical, mental and economic abuse and suffering under section 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and issue protective orders under Section 18 prohibiting the husband from communicating directly or indirectly.

Thus the trial court had denied separate maintenance to the wife which she had challenged. The husband had also challenged the magistrate court's order. 

The court said that while considering whether maintenance amount has to be awarded or not, the Court has to consider earning capacity of the respondent husband, the need and necessity of the maintenance amount to the wife and her child, the lifestyle and for basic necessity.

It said that the wife has to look after her minor child and even if she joins any job based on her qualification, she has to balance the work and life.

"She has to attend the call of her minor child. Even if it is presumed that she would be free when child goes to the school, but soon  after the child returns to the home from school, she has to attend the child till child attain the age of majority. The respondent in assets and liabilities statement itself stated that he is having salary of Rs.3,37,845/- per month.

Admittedly, the respondent (husband) is working in USA and earning the income in dollars. The respondent has not produced his salary certificate to show his exact income, thereby he has suppressed to disclose his actual income. It is admitted fact that the respondent's father is a retired employee. He is getting pension of Rs.58,000/- per month. The respondent himself in his cross-examination stated that his father is getting pension of Rs.58,000/-. But, in order to misrepresent the court, the respondent in his assets and liabilities statement mentioned that expenses incurred on dependents is Rs.3,96,250/-. The respondent's father has properties in Mysore and Bengaluru. The respondent's father residing in their own house. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondent is having burden to look after any of his dependents," the court held.

It said that the husband even after divorce is liable to pay the maintenance to the wife and the child. It however said that the wife cannot claim the maintenance amount to the extent of forty percent of the income of the respondent and that usually the Court can grant maintenance to the extent of 20% of the income of the respondent.

It further said that merely because the wife is having qualification of B.E. Electronics graduate and also done SAP (Systems, Applications, and Products) course in USA, that cannot be ground to deny her to pay maintenance by the respondent.

It said that the mother who has custody of child not only has to spend money on the upbringing of the child but also spending substantial time and efforts in bringing up the child, which the court said cannot be calculated in terms of money.

"Since the petitioner has to look after the child, even she can do the job, in the same time she has to look after the child also which adversely affect her job opportunity also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month till her lifetime or remarriage. This amount of maintenance can be adjustable or set off, if any other forum awards maintenance in favour of the petitioner. The finding given by the trial court declining the petitioner to grant maintenance is not sustainable. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent," the court held. 

The court thus partly allowed the wife's appeal and said that she is entitled to maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month from the date of petition. It upheld the trial court order granting maintenance of 15,000 pm to the child and Rs.1,60,000 per annum awarded for the educational expenses of the child as well as Rs.8,00,000 towards compensation.

The court dismissed the husband's appeal.

Tags: