NO ALIMONY TO WIFE FOR LYING AND MISREPRESENTING

Deception and Lying is a art .It is also a science as several disorders are linked to it specially antisocial personality disorders,borderline personality disorders and multiple personality disorders.Unfortunately in Indian setting Such sophetications and not available and maximum understnading of courts room relate to schizophrenia and depression /alcoholic husbnads.But some woman are adept at this and time to time there lying/misrepresetations/distortions are picked up in court.
ONE SUCH JUDGEMENT IS ENCLOSED CANCELLEING THE ALIMONY ITS LATEST FROM BOMBAY HIGH COURT .Date of judgment april 2010.

1. Section 25 is an enabling provision. It empowers the Court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance. Lady has not come out clean in the court if she  hides her job, qualifications, assets she is at fault.
2. Husbands are not ATM maschines that the moment Maintenance plea comes Exploitive spouse(cruel ,deserter,abusiive ,manipulative and unchaste spouse ) should be awarded Alimony.
3. Wife should not denounce the man and demand the help at the same time and Honerable courts are not extracting tool for the errant wife to saddle him with her expenses.

          (Husband should have  made all the attempts to appease reconcile and cohabit with the          wife.)
 

 

BUT

 

Alimony is inevitable. Even cruel/adulterous/deserter/abscoGet your marriage annulled if want to avoid alimony.nder/bigamous wives are entitled for alimony (based on other merits). I am serious.

Re.: Smt.Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce.

Re.: SLP (Crl) No. 8854    Of   2009  POONAM Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR, date of decision (SC) 16-11-2009, it was held that a woman who deserted her husband and the matrimonial home and refused to return despite repeated requests was not entitled to maintenance.