A family court has refused to grant interim maintenance to a well-educated woman who had suppressed vital information regarding her employment.

Laxmi Rao, principal judge of the family court, rejected the application which sought Rs60,000 per month as maintenance and another Rs75,000 to cover litigation expenses.

The judge observed, “Upon considering the rival contentions, admittedly the wife is an engineering graduate. She resigned her job for better prospects and joined the course of CDAC for six months in 2014. She has suppressed the fact as to whether she has rejoined the same job or has got a better job after her said CDAC course.”

The husband had filed a petition seeking annulment of the marriage. The couple got married on December 26, 2013. He claimed that his wife left her matrimonial home on September 4, 2014 and started living with her mother in Chembur.

The woman was working as a consultant with a private firm in Dadar till June 30, 2014, after which she joined the CDAC course.

However, she claimed that she was currently unemployed and lacked sufficient independent income. In addition, she said, her father was no more, making it difficult for her to support her mother, herself and four other sisters.

She claimed in her application that her husband was a B.E. (Chemical) and had been working at a private firm in Chandivli as a Senior Engineer for more than 16 years now. His salary was Rs1.5 lakh per month, she claimed, adding, he had a bungalow and a flat in Nagpur from which he earned Rs25,000 in rent.

The man objected to the maintenance claim on several counts. First, he said that she had obtained the consent for marriage by fraud as she had not disclosed that she was undergoing treatment for mental illness from 2010. Second, the marriage was not consummated because of her refusal and so he had filed for divorce. Third, he said his wife left for her parents' home with all her belongings, with an express desire to discontinue with the marriage. He claimed that she had been going to his office regularly and creating a commotion.

Fourth, he furnished information to prove that she had undertaken a software development course and was now working at a salary of Rs25,000. She also had bank deposits from which she got regular income. He further claimed that her mother had a catering business and her sisters were all working.

Lastly, he gave information regarding his salary. His take-home was Rs69,000, out of which he made the following payments: an EMI of Rs39,000, Rs2,500 each towards maintenance, electricity and telephone bills, and Rs10,000 per month towards medical expenses of his parents.

Opposing her plea for litigation costs, the husband said she had hired a private lawyer when she could have availed herself of free legal aid, proving that she had sufficient income to bear the litigation expenses.

Thus, rejecting the woman's application for maintenance costs, the judge observed, “Moreover, the petition has been filed for nullity. Hence, in my considered view, interim maintenance need not be granted to the respondent-wife for the aforesaid reasons.”

Further, the judge also rejected her claim for litigation expenses, saying, “Whatever expenses are incurred by her are to be considered and dealt with at the time of final hearing, if found genuine and necessary. I, therefore, proceed to reject this application.”