Allahabad High Court slams ex-judge for hiding income, doubles wife monthly support

On the point of whose jurisdiction the retired judge’s matrimonial case ought to have gone, the High Court referred to the Hindu Marriage Act, saying it should have been a District Judge and not a single court of Civil Judge Senior Division. “So the decree of divorce passed by a Civil Judge, Senior Division is a decree passed by an incompetent court; therefore, such divorce decree has no legal sanctity,” it added.

Second wife, kids not a valid liability: Order

The retired judicial officer contested the maintenance ruling, saying he had married again and had children from his second wife and needed money for their upkeep. The High Court, however, held that his second marriage and children weren’t a “valid liability” while calculating the maintenance to his first wife.

The order highlighted that in such matters, the maintenance-claiming wife is entitled not only up to 25 per cent of income, but her maintenance amount may be above 25 per cent of the pension amount of her husband, and the trial court has passed an order of monthly maintenance less than 25 per cent of the income of the husband, which required no interference.

Husband’s stand

Advocate Abhishek Tripathi, on behalf of the former judge, argued that his client’s basic pay at the time of his retirement was Rs 60,310 per month, and his monthly pension was Rs 25,632, but the trial court ordered him to pay Rs. 18,000 per month, holding his income at Rs 88,000 per month without any reliable evidence.

The wife’s contention, he said, was based on false and baseless facts, as she had hidden the fact that she was not interested in living with the man and was unwilling to perform her matrimonial duties. The counsel said that the trial court “completely failed” to appreciate that the wife had “grabbed the house” of the husband and was living there. The former judge further argued that the children from his first wife had become majors and were able to pay for their own upkeep.

The former judge was said to have bought a plot valued at Rs 60 lakh in his former wife’s name, but the trial court ignored it too.

The judge now had duties towards his second wife and children, and his pension is the only way of their livelihood, and contended that for all these reasons the order should be quashed, the lawyer added.

Divorce lacked legal validity: Wife

The wife’s counsel, advocate Siddharth Khare, however, argued that the revision of maintenance was sought when the man’s income during the 2017-18 period was Rs 1.25 lakh.

The estranged wife, the lawyer said, had been receiving monthly maintenance since 2011, which was initially Rs 5,000, but was later revised to Rs 9,000, and then she sought a further enhancement given the bump in her husband’s income.

He stated that though the husband claimed that his pension was only Rs 25,632 a month during his retirement, his pension had subsequently been revised following the implementation of the II National Judicial Pay Commission, and he admitted receiving about Rs 88,000 per month.

The counsel argued that an incompetent court had granted the divorce, and therefore, there was no point getting into the argument of a second marriage or children born out of it.