A Delhi court has directed a man to pay Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife and minor son in a domestic violence case saying he was duty bound by law to maintain them.
In an ex-parte order against the husband and in-laws of the woman, Metropolitan Magistrate Richa Parihar also directed the man to pay Rs 10,000 to her as compensation.
“Petitioner is without any means to maintain herself. Respondent being husband of petitioner is duty bound by law to provide maintenance to petitioner and her minor child,” the court said.
Noting that the woman had not filed any documentary proof regarding income and occupation of her husband, it directed the man to pay Rs 3,000 to the woman and Rs 2,000 to the child as monthly maintenance.
Relying on the testimony of the woman, the court said, “The evidence led by her has gone unrebutted and unchallenged by the respondents (husband and in-laws). Despite being given opportunities, the respondents failed to appear before the court. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the petition and as reiterated in the affidavit.”
“From the material on record it is proved that petitioner was subjected to mental, physical and economic forms of domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. Petitioner is thus entitled to the reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,” it said.
The court’s order came on an application filed by the woman seeking maintenance from her husband and in-laws in a domestic violence case.
The woman, who got married to the man in 2005 and gave birth to a boy in 2007, had lodged a complaint in 2011 alleging that from the first day of her marriage she was harassed to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry by her husband and his family members.
She had claimed that on February 18, 2007, her husband and in-laws asked her to bring Rs one lakh from her parental house so that they could purchase a new shop.
When she refused, they assaulted her and threw her out of the matrimonial house while she was five months pregnant, she said.
She had also alleged that on one occasion the police had warned her that respondents are influential people and had refused to lodge FIR against them.
The woman had claimed that her husband was a grocery shop owner and was earning Rs 40,000 per month, besides an additional income of Rs 10,000 per month.
