A wife can seek maintenance under different statutes; non-disclosure of interim maintenance in previous proceedings cannot bar her claim.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The original applicant, i.e., the wife being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 27-09-2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad (for short the ‘learned Judge’) in Petition E-No.98/2021, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the applicant for the grant of maintenance, has preferred this revision application.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant vehemently contended that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and erred in dismissing the petition, holding that the applicant has suppressed the fact of filing of the Domestic Violence Proceeding (for short the D. V. Proceeding) and the grant of interim maintenance from the court. Similarly, the learned Judge has erred in observing that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that the non-applicant failed and neglected to maintain her. However, the applicant is staying separately from him without any reason. Therefore, he urged that the said findings are contrary to the facts on record and liable to be set aside in the revision.

4. He further argued that though the applicant has taken the education of LLB, she is not a practising advocate. The respondent-husband has not led any evidence to show that she had an independent income to maintain herself. However, the learned Judge has not considered this fact in its proper perspective and erred in dismissing the application. Accordingly, he urged that the application be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the application, contending that the applicant has deliberately suppressed the material facts relating to the previous filing of DV proceedings and receiving the monetary relief by her in the said proceeding, and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly held that the applicant is not entitled to relief. He further canvassed that the applicant failed to prove that the respondent deserted her. But she herself left the house; therefore, the learned Judge has held that she is not entitled to maintenance on that ground. Lastly, he argued that the respondent has Sickle Cell Disease, a severe hereditary disorder and has 40% permanent disability due to said disease. Therefore, he has to spend a huge amount on his medical treatment. He also resigned from his employment in February 2020 and is currently unemployed. On the contrary, the applicant is a Law Graduate and is educated and capable of earning her livelihood. The applicant was employed and earning approximately Rs. 8000/- per month, and also engaged in Law practice. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance, and, as such, he submitted that the learned Judge has considered this aspect and rightly dismissed the petition; accordingly, no interference is warranted.

6. To buttress his submission, he has relied on the following judgments: K. D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd and others 2008 AIR SCW 6654 , Sudeep Chaudhary Vs Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 , Vishal Rajesaheb Gore Vs Sow. Aparna Vishal Gore and others , 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3399, and Ranjesh Vs Neha Manu/SC/0833/2020 submitted that in view of the law laid down in the above judgments, due to non-disclosure of relevant material facts, the applicant is not entitled to the maintenance and as such, ur