Follow Us:
Friday, July 20, 2018

‘Avoiding alimony “general tendency” of husbands’

The man said his wife was running a beauty parlour and was earning around Rs 10,000 per month but he failed to prove his claim.

Written by Agencies | New Delhi | Published: January 1, 2012 1:18:25 pm

The “general tendency” of avoiding maintenance to an estranged wife by a husband on the grounds of unemployment and financial constraints is unacceptable,a Delhi court has said,asking a man to pay Rs 4,000 per month alimony.

The court order came on a plea by a woman seeking alimony from her husband who had been refusing to pay it on the ground of being unemployed.

“It is the general tendency of husbands to deflate their income when time comes to provide maintenance to their wife and child. In such circumstances,many a times courts have to do some guess work,” Metropolitan Magistrate Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal said.

The court awarded the interim amount to the woman after considering the inflation rate,social status and educational qualifications of both the wife and her husband.

“Considering the facts and circumstances,inflationary rate,social status,educational qualifications,background of the parties,I award maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the wife and her daughter,” the magistrate said.

It also noted that being his legally wedded wife,the woman was having custody of their daughter and was not having any source of income.

The Rohini-based woman,in her complaint,said she got married in July 2008 after which her in-laws used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry.

She had also lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws with the Crime Against Women Cell in 2010.

Seeking alimony,the woman said her husband was working with a multi-national company and was earning Rs 17,000 per month,besides having several properties in his name.

The man,however,claimed that earlier he was earning Rs 3,000 per month but for the past four months,he was unemployed.

Refusing to provide maintenance his wife and daughter,he said he has the responsibility of his parents and three sisters.

The man said his wife was running a beauty parlour and was earning around Rs 10,000 per month but he failed to prove his claim.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App