New Delhi: A Rajasthan-based businessman has been directed by a Delhi court to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his estranged wife who had alleged torture and harassment by her husband and in-laws. Metropolitan Magistrate Mona Tardi Kerketta said it was proved that the man, a resident of Bayawer in Rajastan, was not disclosing his actual employment and income and an adverse inference was required to be drawn against him.
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, status of the parties and their responsibilites, respondent number 1 (man) is directed to pay Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to the complainant,” the court said.
The court, however, declined the woman’s plea seeking compensation from her husband and in-laws for allegedly harassing her, which she claimed had led to her miscarraige. It said that from her medical records, it was not proved that her miscarriage was caused due to atrocities committed by her in-laws and no other cogent evidence has been brought on record to prove mental and emotional injuries caused to her.
In her complaint, the woman had said she got married to the man in November, 2011 and soon after the marriage, her husband and in-laws started harassing and beating her.
She alleged that when the marriage was fixed, the man’s family had claimed they do not want any dowry but after everything was finalised, they started making their demands. The woman, a Delhi resident, also claimed that due to demands and pressure of her in-laws, her parents spent huge amount in the marriage and gave handsome dowry articles.
Soon after the marriage, the man and his family expressed dissatisfaction with the dowry articles brought by her. “Right from the beginning all the respondents started harassing, illtreating, humiliating the complainant for not fulfilling their demands,” the complaint said.
The woman claimed that the man was running a business of artificial jewellery, earning Rs one lakh per month, and also owning several properties.
The man and his family members did not lead any evidence in support of their claims and thereafter, their counsel also stopped appearing in the court. He had earlier claimed that he was an employee at an artificial jewellery shop and was earning Rs 6,000 per month and denied doing any business.
