The Petitioner posted fake news about her employment on social media and the Bombay High Court while awarding interim maintenance to her opined that even if the conduct of the Petitioner is not completely free from blemish, the Courts cannot shut doors on her. It was further held that the mere fact the Petitioner possesses qualifications cannot ipso facto be a ground to deny interim maintenance. The High Court created a distinction between capacity to earn and earning and held presuming that because of education qualification, Petitioner must have secured the job is erroneous.
Brief Facts:
The present petition is filed against the order of the Learned Family Court vide which the Petitioner’s application for grant of maintenance was rejected.
Background:
A petition seeking annulment of marriage was filed by the Petitioner before the Learned Family Court and in the petition, the Application for grant of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. The said Application was rejected because Petitioner possesses higher qualifications and that on her social media, the Petitioner had declared that she has secured a job in a London-based company.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that when the Petitioner is jobless, maintenance cannot be denied merely because Petitioner possesses qualifications. It was contended that the capability to earn and earn are two different things. Regarding social media declaration, it was argued that there is nothing on record to prove that the Petitioner had secured a job and she is earning. It was contended that the offer received by the Petitioner was a sham.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that when the wife can earn and is still sitting idle, she cannot be awarded maintenance. It was argued that based on the reply that Petitioner gave on her social media platform to messages proved that she has accepted the job offer. It was further argued that the Petitioner was engaged in posting a fake letter of appointment and this conduct of hers is a ground based on which no equitable relief should be granted in her favour.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Learned Family Court did not reach a definitive conclusion as to whether Petitioner secured a job or not. It was only presumed that given the qualification of Petitioner, the possibility of securing a job could not be ruled out, which is completely erroneous.
It was noted that except for the social media post, there is no evidence to suggest that Petitioner has secured a job. To prove income, the Respondent could have produced relevant papers like a bank statement, Income tax return etc.
Concerning the fake post of the Petitioner regarding her employment, the High Court remarked that it could have been done either because Petitioner herself was deceived or to gain popularity on basis of factually incorrect information. There is no concrete proof and therefore, the exact reason behind this cannot be ascertained.
The Bench opined that even if the conduct of the Petitioner is not completely free from blemish, the Courts cannot shut doors on her. It was further held that the mere fact the Petitioner possesses qualifications cannot ipso facto be a ground to deny interim maintenance.
The decision of the Court:
Therefore, based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Bombay High Court awarded interim maintenance to the Petitioner and directed the Respondent to pay Rs.7500 per month to the Petitioner.
Case Title: Aboil alias Yugandhara v. Tejpal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2668 of 2021
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. S.V. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
