A Mumbai court has denied a woman’s plea for interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month from her husband, citing her qualifications as a dentist and her ability to find employment in a city like Mumbai.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SP Kekan ruled that the woman, being a dentist, is capable of securing a job and, therefore, cannot claim interim maintenance from her husband.
“The applicant is a doctor living in a metropolitan city like Mumbai. She is expected to pursue her medical profession as a dentist and can easily find job opportunities here. Given her qualifications, she is not entitled to maintenance from her husband in this case,” the Court stated.
However, the Court did grant her request for maintenance for their two children, ordering the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month towards their support.
The couple married in 2015 in Ajmer, Rajasthan, and separated in 2018 when the wife was pregnant with their second child.
The husband claimed that his wife left for her second delivery and never returned to their matrimonial home, despite his efforts to bring her back. He stated that she wanted him to relocate to Mumbai, which he refused, leading him to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Ajmer’s Family Court.
Following this, the wife filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), accusing her husband and his mother of domestic violence. She alleged that her husband was verbally and physically abusive, sometimes acting on his own and sometimes under his mother’s influence.
Both the husband and his mother denied these allegations, asserting that they had fulfilled all their matrimonial obligations and that the wife was negligent in her duties. The husband requested that both the main and related proceedings be dismissed.
The Court found that the wife’s lack of effort to reconcile and her insistence on living in Mumbai, rather than the matrimonial home in Ajmer, worked against her.
“The absence of effort for cohabitation by the applicant and her parents goes against her. Her demand for accommodation in Mumbai indicates her intention to stay there permanently, even though her matrimonial home is in Ajmer, Rajasthan. This also counts against her. Currently, she is living with her parents, which means she resides in a house where she has every right to live, as daughters and sons have equal legal rights to their parents’ property. Therefore, in my view, the applicant is not entitled to any relief regarding the residence order,” the Court said.
The Court also noted that the respondent’s father, now deceased, was twice an MLA and that the family is well-to-do, justifying the need for fair and reasonable maintenance for the children.
Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to pay ₹20,000 per month for the maintenance of their two children.
Case Title: Laxmi Chakrapani Bhati vs. Chakrapani Lalit Bhati
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
