Financial Independence and Employment Opportunities:

 Tara has already secured a job offer, indicating her ability to be financially independent. This
employment demonstrates that she has the means to support herself and does not require
interim maintenance from Dhruv.

Allegations of Adultery:

 Dhruv can argue that Tara's alleged infidelity undermines her moral and legal standing to
claim interim maintenance. Courts have often considered the spouse's conduct, and
allegations of adultery can be a significant factor in denying financial support.

Parental Responsibility and Child Custody:

 Dhruv's pursuit of custody for their daughter Chandni demonstrates his willingness to take
on financial responsibility. If he is granted custody, it weakens Tara's claim for interim
maintenance as Dhruv would be the primary caregiver and financial provider.

Support from Tara's Family:

 Tara's parents have been supporting her and providing her with a place to stay. This familial
support reduces her need for financial assistance from Dhruv, highlighting that she is not
entirely dependent on him.

Behavior and Conduct:

 Dhruv can present Tara's actions, such as leaving the marital home and her interactions with
Navin, as evidence of her lack of commitment to the marriage. Such behavior may disqualify
her from receiving interim maintenance.

Dhruv's Financial Obligations:

 As the Vice President of the National Board of Industries, Dhruv holds a significant position
with substantial financial responsibilities. He can argue that his professional obligations
should be considered in the decision to reject interim maintenance.

Legal Precedents:

 Dhruv's legal team can cite precedents where interim maintenance was denied due to the
spouse's financial independence, infidelity, or other relevant factors. Citing such cases can
strengthen Dhruv's argument for rejecting Tara's claim.
Allegations of Adultery:

 Dhruv can argue that Tara's alleged infidelity and relationship with Navin have fundamentally
damaged the trust and sanctity of their marriage. This infidelity undermines the basis of
their marital relationship, making the restoration of conjugal rights untenable.

Emotional and Psychological Impact:

 Dhruv can present evidence of the emotional and psychological impact Tara's behavior has
had on him, including stress, anxiety, and a loss of trust. These factors make it unreasonable
to compel him to resume conjugal relations against his will.

Lack of Genuine Intention:

 Dhruv can argue that Tara's petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not made in good
faith. If her intention is to secure financial benefits or to manipulate the legal system, rather
than genuinely wishing to reconcile, this undermines the validity of her claim.

Precedent and Legal Principles:

 Dhruv's legal team can cite legal precedents where restitution of conjugal rights was denied
due to similar circumstances. They can argue that the court should prioritize individual
autonomy and personal liberty over forced cohabitation.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:

 Dhruv can argue that the marriage has irretrievably broken down due to the ongoing
disputes, lack of mutual respect, and Tara's actions. Forcing them to live together would only
exacerbate the conflict and harm both parties.

Best Interests of the Child:

 Dhruv can emphasize that compelling him to resume conjugal relations with Tara would not
be in the best interest of their daughter, Chandni. A toxic environment resulting from forced
cohabitation could adversely affect the child's well-being.

Behavior and Conduct:

 Dhruv can provide evidence of Tara's behavior, such as her alleged infidelity and leaving the
matrimonial home, to demonstrate that she has not acted in a manner consistent with a
genuine desire to preserve the marriage.

Earlier husband was liable for divorce if there was an act of adultery but in recent days the wife is
also liable for divorce is shes found to be living in adultery
Arguments from Dhruv's Side for Asking Child's Custody

1. Stable Financial Background:

o Dhruv holds a high-ranking position as the Vice President of the National Board of
Industries. His financial stability can ensure a secure and comfortable upbringing for
Chandni, providing for all her needs without any financial strain.

2. Consistent Parental Involvement:

o Despite his busy work schedule, Dhruv has made consistent efforts to be involved in
Chandni's life. This demonstrates his commitment and dedication to her well-being,
and he is capable of providing the emotional support she needs.

3. Concerns About Tara's Stability:

o Dhruv can argue that Tara's repeated changes in behavior and decisions to leave the
matrimonial home indicate instability. Such instability might not be conducive to
providing a stable environment for Chandni's upbringing.

4. Allegations of Adultery:

o Dhruv has filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery. He can argue that this
behavior by Tara compromises her moral standing and sets a poor example for
Chandni, raising concerns about her ability to provide a sound upbringing.

5. Support System:

o Dhruv has a strong support system, including his family and professional network,
which can assist in Chandni's upbringing. This network can provide additional care
and attention, ensuring that Chandni has a nurturing environment.

6. Educational Opportunities:

o With Dhruv's financial stability and professional connections, he can ensure that
Chandni has access to the best educational opportunities, which might be more
challenging for Tara to provide on her own.

7. Health and Well-being:

o Dhruv can argue that his financial resources allow him to provide the best healthcare
and overall well-being for Chandni, ensuring she grows up in a healthy and
supportive environment.

8. Parental Alienation:

o Dhruv can highlight instances where Tara's actions, such as leaving the house and
taking Chandni with her, indicate an attempt to alienate Chandni from him. Such
actions can be detrimental to Chandni's emotional and psychological well-being.

9. Best Interests of the Child:

o Dhruv can emphasize that his priority is Chandni's best interests. By providing a
stable, loving, and supportive environment, Dhruv can ensure that Chandni's overall
development and well-being are safeguarded.
The case Russell vs. Russell (1897) was heard in the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. The main
issue was whether the husband's conduct constituted cruelty, justifying the wife's petition for judicial
separation.

Key Points:

 Earl Russell and Mabel Scott married in 1890.

 In December 1891, Mrs. Russell filed a petition for judicial separation, accusing her husband
of committing sodomy with a male friend.

 The court had to determine whether this conduct amounted to cruelty under the legal
standards of the time.

The House of Lords ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Russell, setting a high standard for what
constitutes cruelty. The court held that the conduct must be of such a character as to cause danger
to life, limb, or health, bodily or mental, or give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger3.