Court directs man to pay Rs 9K as maintenance to wife & kids
Dismissing the man's appeal against a magisterial court's order for the interim maintenance to his wife and children, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Illa Rawat also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on him for challenging the trial court's order.
The trial court had ordered the husband, a mechanic, to pay Rs 3,000 each to his wife and children for their up-keep.
"I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of June 26, 2011 of the trial court. Accordingly, the said order whereby trial court directed the appellant/husband to pay monthly sum of Rs 3,000 as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and Rs 3,000 each to her two children is hereby upheld," said the ASJ.
"The present appeal filed on behalf of appellant/husband is without merit, hence dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid to respondent within one month from today," it added.
The husband had challenged the trial court's order saying it had not considered his actual income, while his wife too had not filed any proof regarding his income.
He said he was willing to take over the custody of his children, and added that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance as she was working and earning sufficiently.
The court, however, dismissed his plea saying "even the contention taken by appellant that he is ready to take custody of the children appears contrary, when he is not willing to shell out any maintenance for their upkeep."
The sessions court also rejected the man's contention that his mother had also filed a petition claiming maintenance from him.
It is just a "media adopted by him and his family members to evade his liability," the court said.
The court also rejected his plea that he earns only Rs 8,000-9,000 per month, saying "it is difficult to comprehend that a person, who has an income of Rs 8,000 to 9,000 a month, out of which he is not only required to pay the rent for garage but also meet his other expenses, can afford to pay a sum of Rs 1,950 per month as LIC premium.
The trial court's order had come on the plea of his wife for maintenance from him.
In her petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, she had also alleged that her husband and his family members used to harass her and had demanded money from her on several occasions.
She had also alleged that her husband also used to beat her up which had once resulted in a miscarriage.