Kindly call on 022 26111281 or on 9322286663 and take prior appointment for setting up meetings / conference at Head Office i.e "Siddhartha Shah & Associates, Advocates, 11 Hamam House, ground floor, Hamam street, next to Bombay stock exchange, Fort Mumbai -23.
Email : "lawyersidd@gmail.com".
Legal Professional meeting charges shall be on hourly basis. which kindly confirm before booking the meeting.
In the case of Dr. E. Shanthi vs Dr. H.K. Vasudev, the respondent husband had filed for divorce. the petitioner wife had filed an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act for interim maintenance of Rs 5000 per month and litigation expenses of 50,000/.
The above application under section 24 was dismissed by the trail court on the ground that the petitioner wife was a doctor and had her name on the board of Hariharan Clinic as one of the consulting Doctor.
The petitioners reason that the said name appears along with her brother prior to marriage and even though she is not practicing as a Doctor, her name on the board continuous and therefore, petitioner is entitled for a separate maintenance was dismissed .
The issue faced in this case is whether a qualified woman who had stopped working entitled to interim maintenance. In this case, The High Court was in conformity with the decision of the trial court and held that : Admittedly, petitioner is residing with her parents at Chennai and whose brother is also a doctor. When the petitioner was practicing prior to marriage, when her name continuous on the board of the clinic, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
The issue faced in this case is whether a qualified woman who had stopped working entitled to interim maintenance. In this case, The High Court was in conformity with the decision of the trial court and held that :
Admittedly, petitioner is residing with her parents at Chennai and whose brother is also a doctor. When the petitioner was practicing prior to marriage, when her name continuous on the board of the clinic, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
The High Court agreed with the decision of the Trial Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner. When the petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and that when she was working as a doctor prior to marriage, there cannot be any difficulty for her to continue the same profession. Therefore,Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot come to the aid of such persons.
Click here to view judgement
