Skip to main content

Plea of maintenance rejected because of meager salary

The plea of a mentally unstable woman, seeking interim maintenance from her estranged husband in a domestic violence case, has been rejected by a Delhi court which noted that the man had a "meagre salary" and after providing for basic needs, he was left with "almost nothing". Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal upheld magisterial court's order denying the interim maintenance to the woman, on the ground of financial status of the husband, who was earning merely Rs 4,500 per month and was already maintaining his widowed mother and mentally unstable child.

The judge, while noting that the man had to spend Rs 1,300 monthly for medical care of his mother and mentally unstable son, besides other miscellaneous expenses including power, water, etc., said, "It is evident that the husband is earning a meager salary and all of it is spent upon the above said heads of expenditure. "The payment capacity of the husband and his liabilities have also to be considered while fixing the maintenance...it seems that after providing for minimum basic necessities and liabilities, he is left with practically almost nothing." The court, while dismissing the appeal of the woman against the trial court order, also noted that she could not prove that the salary proof of her husband was false or that he had no such liabilities.

The court, however, took exception to the trial court's observation that it was "only a moral duty" of her husband to provide her maintenance. "The trial court has committed an error of law by mentioning that it was only a moral duty of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and children, as it is the legal duty of the husband...," the judge said.

While denying maintenance to the woman, the court accepted the husband's contention that the woman owned a property which could fetch her sufficient rent to maintain herself.

"This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant (woman) is owning a residential property in Delhi and if the said property is given on rent, she can earn sufficient income to provide for herself. In this regard, it seems that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the father of the woman could have let out the property. The woman has failed to show any substantial or reasonable cause as to why the said property is lying vacant," it said, noting that the woman was mentally unstable.

The woman, through her father, had filed an appeal against the trial court order seeking maintenance on the ground that she was mentally ill and required continuous support from the husband, who had thrown her out of the matrimonial house a few years after their marriage in 1998 for bringing insufficient dowry. It contended that the father of the woman was unable to support her for her day-to-day needs, including medical and daily care.

The husband, however, denied all the allegations made in the woman's plea and contended that he was not earning well and had to support his aged mother and his minor son.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-domestic-violence-case-citing-meagre-salary-delhi-court-rejects-wife-s-plea-of-maintenance-by-estranged-husband-2034819

Comments

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...