Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


'1.05 L maintenance to wife right in view of inflation'

‘1.05 L maintenance to wife right in view of inflation’

A court here has dismissed a man’s plea against an order directing him to pay Rs 1.05 lakh per month as maintenance to his estranged wife and two children in a domestic violence case, observing that it was appropriate in view of the rising prices in metropolitan cities like Delhi.

“It may be mentioned that there is a rapid price hike in metropolitan cities like Delhi. Keeping in view the income of the husband as well as the rising prices in metropolitan cities like Delhi, I am of the considered view that it is an appropriate amount awarded for the maintenance of wife as well as her two children,” Special Judge Ramesh Kumar said.

The judge also observed that it is the duty of every able bodied husband to maintain his wife and children.

“It may be mentioned that the respondent, being legally wedded wife of the appellant, is liable to be maintained by him. It is the duty of every able bodied husband to maintain his wife and children. In the present matter, the appellant cannot escape from the said liability.

“Keeping in view the source of income of the appellant and in view of the standard of living of the parties, I am of the considered view that grant of interim maintenance at Rs 35,000 per month each to the aggrieved as well as to the two minor children was fully justified,” the judge said.

A magisterial court had on March 23, 2016 directed the man to pay interim maintenance of Rs 35,000 each to his wife and two children in the complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act.

In his appeal, the man contended that his wife, whom he got married to in 1999, was a self-centred woman who used to emotionally blackmail him and his family members and left the matrimonial house 10 years after their wedding.

He had also claimed that the magisterial court’s order was “bad in law” as while noting his income to be Rs 1.5 lakh it did not consider his expenses.

He contended that as a Director in a company he had 33 per cent share holding and cannot be overburdened under the garb of maintenance.

(Source : PTI)


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz