‘Maintenance must for separated working women too’

“In case,she is an educated lady,she would definitely make efforts to do some job and earn livelihood. That should not be a disqualification for her to claim maintenance from her husband,” ASJ Bhat said,while awarding the sum as maintenance to her and their son.

The sessions court’s order came on an appeal by the woman challenging a magisterial court’s order which had awarded a maintenance of Rs 4,000 only for the couple’s son,but had dismissed the woman’s plea for alimony on the ground that she had been earning herself.

The court gave its order also dismissing the husband Rajesh Mahajan’s appeal objecting to the magistrate’s order asking him to pay Rs 4,000 to their minor son for maintenance apart from paying his school fee.

The sessions court set aside the magisterial court’s reasoning for denying the maintenance to the woman and said,”For instance,if a wife after being neglected by her husband,starts begging and gets a handsome amount daily as alms,she can be,by no means,taken to be earning handsomely for her maintenance and not entitled to maintenance from her husband.”

In her plea to the court,the woman had said she had married Mahajan in 2001 and had a son from him,but was forced to leave her matrimonial home on January 24,2008 along with their child,who is now eight-year-old,due to harassment by her in-laws.

While ordering Mahajan to pay the woman a sum of Rs 10,000,the session court refused to lower the sum of Rs 4,000,asked by the magisterial court to be paid for the maintenance of the minor child.

“The rough estimate of husband’s income as Rs 40,000 per month given by the magistrate in the order seems to be justified in the present case,” the judge said,noting that Mahajan too was running a coaching centre in his house but had not disclosed his income.

The court also appreciated the woman for disclosing the fact that she was taking tuitions and earned from it.

“The honesty of the woman in stating so fairly in her complaint must be lauded and appreciated as she could have conveniently concealed the same. She should not be penalised by refusing maintenance to her just because she honestly disclosed before the court that she is taking tuition of primary classes in order to fulfill the needs of her daily life and that of the minor child,” The court said.