A woman has been denied alimony by a Delhi court, which observed that she was capable of working as she used to before marriage. The court held that she was not dependent on her husband for survival.
“The couple does not have a child and therefore the woman was as independent as the man to work and maintain herself,” Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj said.
The court dismissed the appeal of the woman, a resident of Delhi, who had challenged the order of a magisterial court which had also denied her relief on similar grounds.
The court rejected the woman’s plea relying on judgments of the Delhi High Court, in which it had held that when husband and wife have equal educational qualifications, both must take care of themselves.
“In view of the judgments by the High Court of Delhi, where it has been held that wherever the wife is capable to work and had been working, she shall not be considered dependent upon the husband for her survival, there is no apparent error in the order of trial court,” the sessions court said.
The woman had approached the court seeking maintenance from her estranged husband.
In her appeal, the woman said she was dependent on her estranged husband for her livelihood and claimed that the trial court had committed an error in concluding that she was capable to work, so cannot be granted maintenance.
The man’s counsel, however, argued that as per her own admission she was working before her marriage and she was an independent woman and could take care of herself.
The woman, in her complaint before the trial court, had said she was running a small fashion designing business in Delhi.
“There is an admission on part of the woman that she was working and thus was capable of working. It was not pleaded as to how her marriage has rendered her incapable of continuing the work which she was doing prior to her marriage,” Additional Sessions Judge Bhardwaj said.
“The couple does not have any child and therefore the woman was as independent as the man to work and maintain herself,” the judge said.