MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Voluntarily incapacitates from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance

Rajasthan High Court

Govind Singh vs Smt. Vidya on 21 April, 1999

Bench: A Singh
JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected.

2. The appellant was formerly earning his living by running an auto-rikshaw on hire. He has stopped that work. The respondent is said to be working as a nurse in hospital. The learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant was incapable of earning his living.

3. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the auto-rikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.

See also  Whether one of cause of action for eviction of tenant which was given up can be revived?

4. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal. It deserves to be dismissed at the admission and is hereby dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  A mother’s writ of habeas corpus denied as custody of child with the father is not illegal
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation