A qualified spouse capable of earning cannot claim interim maintenance if desiring to remain idle, as established by precedents and the appellant's qualifications and capacity to work.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral). - CM APPL. 52194/2019 (Delay of 21 days in filing appeal)

1. By this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 21 days' delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of.

MAT. APP. (F.C.) 311/2019

1. Ms. Gurpreet Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') aggrieved by the order dated 23rd September, 2019 in HMA No. 1358/2017, vide which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court (South), Delhi has declined to grant pendente lite interim maintenance claimed in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month besides litigation expenses at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955'), has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

2. A divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 has been filed by the respondent Amit Jain against the appellant for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, claiming interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month, beside Rs. 2 lakhs as the litigation expenses.

3. Factual background leading to present litigation is that the parties got married on 09.11.2015 as per Vedic Rites in an Arya Samaj Mandir, Rajinder Market, Delhi, after being in a relationship for a period of three years. The appellant has claimed that she was subjected to harassment and torture on account of dowry since the very first day of marriage. It is claimed that on 09th December, 2017, when she came back to her matrimonial home from Bengaluru, she was shocked to see that the respondent had left the home where they were residing together. The respondent refused to join appellant's company despite repeated requests and persuasions, instead he threatened her with dire consequences. The appellant has claimed that she was deserted by the respondent without making any provision for her day-to-day expenses, mess, medicines etc.

4. The appellant has asserted that she is well-qualified and was working in a Company but was compelled to leave her job in September, 2017 because of provocation, insistence and pressure from the respondent and his mother who wanted the appellant to perform kitchen and other household chores. It is claimed by the appellant that the respondent used his good standing in the market and through his contacts with the appellant's employer; he got her turned out of her job. Thereafter, the appellant tried to get another job but has not been successful since she has got the title of 'dismissed employee'. It is further claimed that she has no independent income and is totally dependent upon the mercy of her father.

5. It is further claimed that the respondent is working with M/s Silverbucks Consultant Pvt. Ltd. as a Manager and is earning a huge amount of money. The respondent has moveable and immoveable assets worth crores of rupees in the name of his family members and himself, which generate rental income. He is leading a lavish and luxurious lifestyle and spends extravagantly on himself and his parents and relatives. However, the respondent is intentionally and deliberately neglecting to discharge his legal and moral obligation of maintaining the appellant.

6. The appellant had sought pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per month, besides litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs.

7. The respondent contested the application by filing a detailed reply. It was explained by him that the appellant was working with EXL where she was drawing a salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month. The appellant voluntarily relieved herself from her employment on 30th September, 2017 by submitting a letter to her employer, claiming that her mother-in-law was not permitting her to continue with the job. This claim of the appellant that she had left the job at the insistence of the respondent's mother wh