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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...