A 26-year-old married woman moved the court against her businessman husband for monthly maintenance claiming she is not working. However, her husband challenged her application and provided details of her monthly salary along with other documents to prove that she is employed as a software techie.
As a result, the court of judicial magistrate (first class) SS Patil rejected her interim relief for maintenance and passed strictures against her.
Manisha Dighe married Baner-based Anuj (33) (names change to protect their identities) on June 26, 2009. However there was a drift in their relationship and in 2012 Manisha moved an application before the court seeking monthly maintenance of Rs1 lakh and temporary accommodation under relevant sections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Anuj, his mother and his two sisters.
Manisha in her plaint alleged, “Anuj used to get random calls from a woman and when I asked him, he replied it was his girlfriend’s call. When I confronted him about it, he started beating me. Later he started demanding Rs3 lakh cash for purchasing a flat. Anuj’s mother and sisters poured oil on me and tried to set me on fire but I somehow managed to rescue myself.”
She added, “Anuj’s sister’s engagement broke on February 2011 for which Anuj wanted to take revenge against her fiance. He started forcing me to register a case of rape against that fiance to defame him. I left the house and I had also registered a complaint with Chatuhshrungi police station in this regard. Now I am pursuing my postgraduation and have no income. On the other hand, Anuj earns Rs5 lakh per month ”
Anuj’s lawyer Pratibha Ghorpade argued,”Manisha is falsely implicating Anuj and cooking up a story before the court. Manisha is working in a Baner-based company and to prove the case, the head of the human resources department of the Baner-based IT company must be summoned in court.”
Accordingly, an official of the HR department submitted her income tax, her salary slips which mentioned that she is earning Rs52,000 per month which includes house rent allowance, conveyances and other expenses.”
The court observed, “It appears that Manisha has not come before the court with clean hands. During the pendency of main application of Manisha, she is seeking interim relief in the nature of interim maintenance before the court. It was her duty to come before the court with clean hands but as mentioned above I have come to the conclusion that she has not come before this court with clean hands. She has completed BE and is earning handsome income and therefore temporary relief is rejected.”