{"id":9271,"date":"2018-07-30T15:54:58","date_gmt":"2018-07-30T10:24:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=9271"},"modified":"2018-07-30T15:55:07","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T10:25:07","slug":"126-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/126-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether maintenance granted to wife can be reduced if she is capable of earning?"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2017 (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos. 6025-6026 of 2013)<\/p>\n

Decided On: 18.01.2017<\/p>\n

Shailja
\nVs.
\nKhobbanna<\/p>\n

Hon’ble Judges\/Coram:
\nMadan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.<\/p>\n

Citation: (2018) 4 SCC 501<\/p>\n

1. Leave granted. The matters have been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent.<\/p>\n

2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the High Court and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Family Court.<\/p>\n

3. The Family Court had directed payment of maintenance for an amount of Rs. 15,000\/- per month to the Appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000\/- per month to the son.<\/p>\n

4. The High Court while considering the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court did not accept the contention of the Respondent – husband that the Appellant-wife was working. All that was held was that the Appellant – wife was capable of earning and therefore maintenance was reduced to an amount of Rs. 6000\/- from Rs. 15,000\/- for her and Rs. 6000\/- from Rs. 10,000\/- for the son.<\/p>\n

5. In other words, out of an amount of Rs. 25,000\/- (total) awarded by the Family Court for the Appellant No. 1 and the son, the High Court has reduced the amount to Rs. 12,000\/- (total).<\/p>\n

6. We are not satisfied with the order passed by the High Court considering the income of the Respondent – husband, which we have been told, is more than Rs. 80,000\/- per month since the Respondent – husband is a Senior Lecturer in a college. It is stated by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent – husband is also the owner of 26 acres of irrigated land.<\/p>\n

7. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the Appellant No. 1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the Appellant No. 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the Appellant No. 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.<\/p>\n

8. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Family Court.<\/p>\n

9. It appears that the son has now attained the age of majority. If that is so, the son will be entitled to maintenance only till the age of reaching majority.<\/p>\n

10. Subject to the above, the order passed by the Family Court is affirmed. The appeals are accordingly allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2017 (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos. 6025-6026 of 2013) Decided On: 18.01.2017 Shailja Vs.…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[13843,47171,47,68864,50121,68865,68866,1690,68867,195,69810,89,69252,174,3034,2188,44178,69809,119,68862,67297],"class_list":["post-9271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-13843","tag-498a-of-indian-penal-code","tag-498a","tag-498a-explained","tag-498a-free-advice","tag-498a-harassment","tag-498a-india","tag-498a-ipc","tag-498a-links","tag-498a-misuse","tag-capable-of-earning","tag-cruelty","tag-domestic-viol","tag-dowry-law-misuse","tag-evidence-act","tag-free-advice","tag-ipc-498","tag-khobbanna","tag-maintenance","tag-mynation-498a-group","tag-mynation-whatsapp-group"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}