Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000

Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
  Madhya Pradesh High CourtSmt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 170 Author: J ChitreBench: J ChitreORDER J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner Mamta Jaiswal has acquired qualification as MSc. M.C. M.Ed, and was working inGulamnabi Azad. College of Education, Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal (MHS). The husband Rajesh Jaiswalis sub-engineer serving in Pimampur factory. The order which is under challenge by itself showsthat Mamta Jaiswal, the wife was earning Rs. 4,000/- as salary when she was in service in the year1994. The husband Rajesh Jaiswal is getting salary of Rs. 5,852/-. The Matrimonial Court awardedalimony of Rs. 800/- to Mamta Jaiswal per month as pendente lite alimony, Rs. 400/- per monthhas been awarded to their daughter Ku, Diksha Jaiswal. Expenses necessary for litigation has beenawarded to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. The Matrimonial Court has directed Rajesh Jaiswal to pay travelling expenses to Mamta Jaiswal whenever sheattends Court for hearing of them matrimorialpetition pending between them. Matrimonial petition has been filed by husband Rajesh Jaiswal forgetting divorce from Mamta Jaiswal on the ground of cruelty. This revision petition arises onaccount of rejection of the prayer made by Mamta Jaiswal when she prayed that she be awarded thetravelling expenses of one adult attendant who is to come with her for attending Matrimonial Court.2. Mr. S.K. Nigam, pointed out that the petition is mixed natured because if at all it is touchingprovisions of Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience)then that has to be filed within a month. Mr. Mev clarified that it is a revision petition mainly meantfor challenging pendente lite alimony payable by the husband in view of Section 24 of the Act. Hepointed out the calculations of days in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned order. In view of that, it is hereby declared that this revision petition is within limitation, entertainable, keeping in view the spirit of the Act and Section 24 of it.3. A wife is entitled to get pendente lite alimony from the husband in view of provisions of Section24 of the Act if she happens to be a person who has no independent income sufficient for her tosupport and to make necessary expenses of the proceedings. The present petitioner, the wife, MamtaJaiswal has made a . prayer that she should be paid travelling expenses of one adult member of herfamily who would be coming to Matrimonial Court at Indore as her attendant. Therefore, thequestion arises firstly, whether a woman having such qualifications and once upon a time sufficientincome is entitled to claim pendente lite alimony from her husband in a matrimonial petition whichhas been filed against her for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Secondly, whether such a woman isentitled to get the expenses reimbursed from her husband if she brings one adult attendantalongwith her for attending the Matrimonial Court from the place where she resides or a distantplace.4. In the present case there has been debate between the spouses about their respective income. Thehusband Rajesh has averred that Mamta is still serving and earning a salary which is sufficientenough to allow her to support herself. Wife Mamta is contending that she is not in service Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000Indian Kanoon -  presently. Wife Mamta is contending that Rajesh, the husband is having salary of Rs. 5,852/- permonth. Husband Rajesh is contending that Rs. 2,067/- out his salary, are deducted towardsinstalment of repayment of house loan. He has contended that Rs. 1,000/- are spent in his to and frotransport from Indore to Pithampur. He has also detailed by contending that Rs. 200/- are beingspent for the medicines for his ailing father. And, lastly, he has contended that by taking intoconsideration these deductions as meagre amount remains available for his expenditure.5. It has been submitted that Mamta Jaiswal was getting Rs. 2,000/- as salary in the year 1994 andshe has been removed from the job of lecturer. No further details are available at this stage. Thus,the point is in a arena of counter allegations of these fighting spouses who are eager to peck eachother.6. In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted tosaddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to getpendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who isincapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remainidle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut inthe nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idlepersons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving inGulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficientexperience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to beanswered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spiteof sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable tosupport herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted tosit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him duringpendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idlepersons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got agrievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice verssa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site idle and puts his burdenon the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also notpermissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self madelazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has tomake sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted,there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk outthe adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicablesettlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony,and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity  Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000Indian Kanoon -  to support and maintain himself or herself That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It isindirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincereefforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fightout the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.7. In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs. 800/- per month as pendente litealimony and has been awarded the relief of being reimbursed from husband whenever she makes atrip to Indore from Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is well qualified woman once upon time abviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How shecan be equated with a gullible woman of village ? Needless to point out that a woman who iseducated herself with Master's degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education,. would not feelherself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when atleast a bus service is available as mode of transport. The sumbission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestable. Thissmells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged.8. In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. Thespouses who are quarelling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to beguided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious,excessive facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged.Even then, if the spouses do not think of amicable settlement, the Matrimonial Courts shoulddispose of the matrimonial petitiorisas early as possible. The Matrimonial Courts have to keep it inmind that the quarells between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of their offsprings of such wedlocks. The offsprings do not understand as to where they should see ? towards father ortowards mother ? By seeing them both fighting, making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderedness and loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on theirminds and brains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to create complications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to such danger on account of such fightingparents.9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation ormodification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed. The MatrimonialCourt is hereby directed to decide the matrimonial petition which is pending amongst these twospouses as early as possible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit monthwise report aboutthe progress of the said matrimonial petition to this Court so as to secure a continuous,unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs. The amount of pendente litealimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband Rajesh Jaiswal should be deposited by him within amonth by counting the date from the date of order. The failure on this aspect would result indismissal of his matrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs. 400/- per month to hisdaughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of application of her maintenancei.e. 14.5.1998. That has to be also deposited within a month. He may take out sufficient money forthat from his savings or take a loan from some good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure inthis aspect also would result in dismissal of his petition. C.C. Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000Indian Kanoon -
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!