Not every educated person lands a a job, a Delhi court has said while awarding an interim alimony of Rs 15,000 per month to a woman, rejecting her estranged husband’s claim that she was qualified enough to earn a living. Additional Sessions Judge Vikas Dhull set aside an order of a magisterial court denying interim alimony to the woman on the ground that she was a graduate and was capable of earning.
“Being qualified is one aspect but based upon the qualification, a person being able to secure a job is another aspect. Just because a person happens to be educated does not necessarily mean that he would be able to secure a job.
“Therefore, the trial court wrongly denied maintenance to the appellant wife on the ground that she was a graduate and was capable of earning. The trial court forgot that the social obligation is that of the husband to maintain his wife,” the court said.
It assessed the man’s monthly income at Rs 70,000 and directed him to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife.
The sessions court allowed the woman’s appeal against the trial court’s order, saying it was not sustainable in the eyes of law as the magistrate has denied the right of interim maintenance to the wife by ignoring the acts of domestic violence committed by the man and by ignoring the fact that she was unemployed while her husband was employed.
It noted that the woman was a graduate in physical education which was not a high qualification on the basis of which she could have easily got a job.
The woman, residing in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, sought maintenance from her estranged husband, alleging she was tortured and beaten up by him and her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry.
She had also alleged that in May 2015 her in-laws had fed her some intoxicating substance and thrown her on the banks of a river in UP’s Bulandshehar area. An FIR was lodged in this regard.
While the woman claimed that her husband was working with a multinational company and earning Rs 1.6 lakh per month, the man said he was unemployed due to marital problems and was suffering from depression.
The man, a resident of Delhi, claimed that the woman was prima facie not able to establish that she was subjected to domestic violence. He contended that being a graduate she could easily secure a job.
The sessions court also held that the trial court wrongly considered the amount being credited to the woman’s account for denying her interim maintenance.
It accepted the submission of the woman that the money credited to her account was being deposited by her parents to help her economically as her husband was not giving her money for maintenance.