Skip to main content

Unwillingness to maintain wife is economic abuse: Court

A man cannot refuse maintenance to his estranged wife having no source of income as that amounts to economic abuse, a Delhi court has held.
Setting aside a trial court order dismissing the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her estranged husband, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed that in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that no case of domestic violence was established.
'Not maintaining wife is economic abuse'
"The admitted facts are sufficient to show that appellant (wife) had no source to maintain herself, though the respondent (husband) was having sufficient means to live a comfortable life. He, therefore, cannot refuse to maintain his wife.
"His pleadings also show that he was not willing and interested to maintain the appellant, which in itself is sufficient to show that he has caused economic abuse upon the appellant," the court said.
It said that the trial court had overlooked the complete definition of domestic violence and the admissions in the pleadings of the respondent to conclude that since the woman did not lead any evidence to prove her allegations, therefore, her allegations remained bald averments.
The court also held that there exist domestic relations between the man and the woman who had entered into wedlock 35 years ago, have three children out of the said marriage and were living in the same house though on different floors.
"The existence of domestic relationship is dependent upon subsistence of marriage between the parties and upon the fact that they had lived together in a shared household and at present, they are living in the same house, though on different floors. Therefore, I do find existence of domestic relationship between them," it said.
While noting that due to the dispute existing between the parties, the woman needs protection order, the court remanded back the matter to the trial court to decide the modalities for her protection as per law and the amount of maintenance.
"The appellant would be entitled to maintenance order as well as for protection order against her dispossession from 1st floor of property and from disconnection of electricity connection," the court said.
The woman, a Delhi resident, had filed a complaint seeking maintenance from her husband claiming herself to be without any source of income and alleging cruelty and desertion by him.

Article referred: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5442636856408625861#allposts

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...