Wonderful judgment from Ms Rekha Rani of Delhi District and Sessions Court, who held that
From Para 10, “It is quite shocking and deplorable that a person having the qualification as the respondent has, having capacity to work has chosen not to work on her own will. Respondent further stated that she cannot travel alone anywhere and she wants the appellant to travel with her to help her in search of job. The said submission is neither palatable nor digestible. She is embroiled in bitter litigation with the appellant. Both are coming to the Court separately. If respondent can come to the Court to fight litigation alone, she can go alone to search a job as well.“
From Para 11,
“Be that as it may, at this stage, the appellant has stated that he is willing to accompany the respondent whereever she has applied for a job and get a call for interview. He has also stated that he is also willing to assist her in whatever way she wants his assistance in finding placement. He also voluntarily agreed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent as awarded to the respondent vide the impugned order for a period of one year and has submitted that during this period respondent should make sincere efforts for getting a job.”
From Para 12,
“I fully agree with the submissions made by the appellant. Respondent admitted being more qualified than the appellant. She admitted being able bodied person and having capacity to earn. As such she cannot be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on the appellant. Let her make sincere endeavour to find work. As offered by appellant, if respondent needs assistance of the appellant in finding job, she may communicate with him by sending SMS on mobile / email. Both the parties are directed to exchange their respective mobile numbers and email addresses, within a week before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant has agreed to pay her maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year and during this period, she should make sincere efforts and start working. The impugned order is operative for one year from the date of order.”Rajan Parmar Vs Mamta Parmar on 10 March, 2016
The earlier order from trial court which ordered monthly Rs.12,000/- maintenance is here.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]