Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In the present case, I am of the view that there is no document to prove or show that respondent-wife has been in regular employment for consideration/salary. The alleged statements given by respondent‟s brother and sister are unsigned Section 161 Cr. P.C. statements, which are not admissible in trial and in fact, in view of the specific denial on affidavit by respondent‟s brother and sister, I am of the view that they cannot be relied upon.

15. Also keeping in view the respondent-wife‟s specific averment that she was not qualified to teach and petitioner- husband‟s admission that she was only intermediate pass, I am of the prima facie opinion that respondent-wife was incapable of being employed as a teacher on a permanent/regular basis. Therefore, the judgment of Mamta Jaiswal (supra) relied upon by petitioner‟s Counsel is irrelevant and inapplicable to the facts of present case. I may also mention that despite respondent- wife‟s specific averment that she did not have a bank account prior to March, 2009, petitioner-husband, except stating on an affidavit that respondent-wife had a bank account with Gramin Bank, has not filed any document like banker‟s certificate etc. in support of his contention. Accordingly, in view of respondent- wife‟s specific averment on an affidavit along with Bank of India‟s certificate, I am prima facie of the view that respondent-wife did not even have a bank account prior to March, 2009. Consequently, I am prima facie of the opinion that the respondent has till date not been employed for consideration/salary and she has no source of independent income.