1.Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Revision No.1290 of 1999 decided on 24.03.2000.
In this case the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged. It is further held that a lady, who is fighting matrimonial litigation filed for Divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the Husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not mean for creating an army of idle person who would be sitting idle waiting for a “dole” to be awarded by her Husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the court for seeking relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and wait for a “dole” to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible .The law does not help indolent as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but for away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlements because he would be reaping the in nature of pendente lite alimony, and to prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned money by toiling working hours.
2. Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermet Juneja & Anr. 2012  JCC 2375.
In this case it was held that if the wife was working in past and resigned from the employment, she is not entitled for maintenance under Domestic Violence act. The question whether the wife was forced to resign or she has resigned herself is a question to be considered by the court during trial and also the question whether the reason given by her for resigning were satisfactory or not. These are the question to be gone in to during evidence by the ld. Trial Court.
3.Vijay Kumar Vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal decided on 10.09.2008 in CM (M) ENo.539/2008 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
In this case the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that when Income of both husband and wife are almost similar and both almost equally qualified, there is no justification to grant interim maintenance to the wife.
4. Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008 Supreme Court .
In this case while reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.10000/- to Rs.5000/- granted by the lower court to the wife, the Supreme Court observed that ” we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent wife is not employed or at least there is nothing on record to indicate that she is employed in any gainful work. However having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.
5. Omar Abdullah Vs. Payal Abdullah & Ors. 2018 (1) JCC 632.
In this case the Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to decide first the maintainability of the petition filed by the wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that Maintainability of the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C and question of award of interim maintenance are inseparable. In Order to award interim maintenance ,the court concerned shall first arrive at a finding that whether the husband neglected or refused to give maintenance to his wife and whether the wife was unable to maintain herself ,then proceed with the case further.
6.Suman Bhasin Vs.Neeraj Bhasin CC No.316/3/2007 Dated 27.05.2015 MM , Saket District Court”
In this case Court came heavily and imposed cost of Rs. one lakh for filing false Domestic Violence case against Husband and in-laws. Court in its judgment has observed that Domestic Violence law has been misused.
7.Tanushree Dahiya Vs. Sachin Dahiya case no.26/2016 decided on 15.01.2019,ADJ Saket District Court N.Delhi
In this case while rejecting the maintenance petition filed by the wife who is well qualified has also observed that Court should not be allowed to be used to extort money, junks woman’s maintenance plea and imposed a cost of Rs. One lac on the woman, saying the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C has filed only to blackmail the Husband.
8. Kusum Bhatia Vs.Sagar Sethi S.L.P.(C) No.16051/2017 Dated 16.09.2019 Supreme Court
Supreme Court has declined to award any maintenance u/s 24 of H.M.A to wife who was working and getting sufficient salary, however it awarded maintenance to the Daughter.
9.Abhishek Dubey Vs. Archna Tiwari Crl.Rev.P.No.944/2019 dated 15.10.2019.Delhi High Court
In a Domestic Violence Case, Interim maintenance enhanced and it was ruled by the Delhi High Court that Husband is duty bound to maintain the legally wedded wife as per his status.
10.Sanjay Damolar Kale Vs.Kalyany Sanjay Kale 2020 SCC on line Bombay High Court 694
In a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C, wife cannot deny maintenance on the ground of having source of income.
11. Kachwa Vs. Anil Kachwa (2014)3 D.M.C 878 Supreme Court
In any event, merely because the wife was working and earning something, it would not be ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
12. Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramendri (2000)3 SCC 180 Supreme Court.
A woman after Divorce becomes destitute. If she cannot maintain herself and remains unmarried, the man who was her husband continues to be under duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her.
13. Sanjay Damolar Kale Vs.Kalyany Sanjay Kale 2020 SCC on line Bombay High Court 694
Statuary right of wife of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC cannot be permitted to be taken away or infringed by setting up an agreement not to claim maintenance .Further wife cannot denied maintenance on the ground of having source of income.
14. Kanwal Kishore Vs. Dr.Meena Crl.M.C.4436/2016 Delhi High Court
High Court rules in favour of the Husband who wants to alter ‘Maintenance contract’ made with wife on the order of matropolitan Magistrate.
15. Deepti Sharma Vs. State of U.P & Anr. SLP (Crl) D.No.40576/018 Supreme Court
Maintenance Case: Husband won the battle, Wife wins the war.
16.Sunita Vs. Anil & Anr. Crl. Appeal No. 1680/2019 Supreme Court
Mere facts that the wife stayed only 12 days in the matrimonial house, is not a ground to deny maintenance to her.
17. Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1SCC 188
The Second Wife is entitled for maintenance under section 125 CRPC, if the husband has married her by suppressing his first marriage
18. Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr (Crl) Appeal no.730 of 2020 Supreme Court of India (Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities Judgment)
In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines to be implemented in the cases related to the maintenance cases in all the courts throughout the India with immediate effect.