Delhi High Court directs Omar Abdullah to pay Rs.1.5 Lakh per month in interim maintenance to estranged wife

Justice Prasad opined that Abdullah cannot “abandon his children and ought not to abdicate his duties as a father”.

Noting that Payal Abdullah has been “saddled with the responsibility of paying the entire fee for the education of both the children”, the HC said that it is the father’s duty to also contribute towards their education.

“Therefore, even though the Petitioners (sons) are not entitled to any maintenance as per the law, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent should compensate the Petitioner (Payal Abdullah) in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 by sharing the burden of the amount spent by her towards the expenses and upkeep of the children. Resultantly, this Court directs the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- per month per son to the Petitioner (Payal Abdullah) in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 for the purpose of their education. The period of compensation shall commence from the date when the children were enrolled in the law college, and shall subsist till their graduation from the law college,” the HC said.

The order came in two pleas moved by Payal and the two sons challenging a 2018 order of the family court in a maintenance petition. The family court said that Payal Abdullah was entitled to an interim maintenance of Rs 75,000 by Omar Abdullah from the date of filing of the maintenance plea, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, till its disposal. The family court further said that one of the son’s was entitled to an interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 for a limited period of three months till he attained the age of majority. Payal and the two sons moved the HC seeking revision of the family court’s orders.

Noting that the maintenance petition was filed in 2016, the high court directed the family court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 months after receiving the copy of the HC order.

“The receipt of maintenance is not, however, exclusive to women and children who are on the edge of destitution and potential vagrancy. In fact, there is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded…It is also settled law that other factors like age and employment of the parties, and the factum of the wife earning income, must also be considered,” the HC noted.

The HC also said that it is settled law that applicants in a maintenance proceeding are entitled to the same standard of living as they would have enjoyed if the dispute had not occurred.

The HC said that in this case, Omar Abdullah is a “man of means, and has access to financial privilege that evades the common man”.

Justice Prasad observed: “While it is understandable that being a politician, revealing all information pertaining to financial assets might be dangerous, however, there is no iota of doubt that the Respondent does have the resources to provide for his wife and children.”

Perusing through the income affidavits of both Omar and Payal, the HC said that “husband does indeed lead a lavish lifestyle”. It noted that documents had been attached with the petition which revealed that the “Respondent has been travelling to Dubai and London, living in five-star and seven-star hotels and spending lakhs on such luxuries. These documents belie the submission that he does not have the means to live an extravagant life. He evidently has the financial means to provide support to his wife and children”. The HC also noted that while Payal is a Director of three loss-making companies, had studied only till Class 12 and her father is a retired Army General, and even though she was “unemployed”, she was not a “complete destitute”.

“Therefore, the question of awarding an excessive amount of maintenance does not arise, but the question of no maintenance or very low maintenance also does not arise,” the HC observed.