Rajasthan HC Rejects 'Maintenance' For A Wife Who Blocked Her Husband's Enrollment As A Lawyer
“Only inference the Court can draw would be that the Senior with whom the respondent works would give him some stipend and not a junior fee because the respondent cannot appear in Courts. The stipend would be meager.”
The Rajasthan high court recently dismissed a wife's plea seeking maintenance from her husband whose enrollment as a lawyer was blocked as she reported about pendency of '498A' case against him to the Bar Council of Rajasthan. The Family court, in this case, had denied maintenance to the wife taking into account the contention of the husband that though he is a law graduate, he could...
The Rajasthan high court recently dismissed a wife's plea seeking maintenance from her husband whose enrollment as a lawyer was blocked as she reported about pendency of '498A' case against him to the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
The Family court, in this case, had denied maintenance to the wife taking into account the contention of the husband that though he is a law graduate, he could not practice as a lawyer. His case was that, when he filed the application seeking enrollment with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, his wife forwarded papers to the Bar Council showing that he was an accused for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Due to this the Bar Council of Rajasthan did not enroll him as an advocate. The court had only directed the husband to pay Rs.150 to wife for each court hearing.
In the appeal filed by wife challenging this order, the bench comprising Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice GR Moolchandani observed that she failed to show that her husband has any means of income.
Terming this case as a 'self goal' by the wife, the bench said: "The only material wherefrom some income of the respondent can be inferred is that he is helping a lawyer in his Chamber, but cannot appear in Court because he does not have any licence from the Bar Council to do so..... Only inference the Court can draw would be that the senior with whom the respondent works would give him some stipend and not a junior fee because the respondent cannot appear in Courts. The stipend would be meager."
The bench then dismissed the appeal.