A sessions court on Tuesday ordered a textile businessman to pay Rs. 30,000 to his estranged wife as interim maintenance monthly, instead of Rs. 15,000. The South Mumbai resident had approached the court stating that the amount of Rs. 15,000 ordered was ‘unwarranted’.
The woman had claimed before the magistrate that after their marriage in 2001, the husband and his family had started harassing her and that her spouse used to beat her mercilessly. She had approached the police many times too, in this regard. The couple no longer lived together. She said she had to look after their son, for whose education too, the man did not contribute. The magistrate had ordered the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 to her for the upkeep of herself and the son.
The husband had challenged this order and contended that his wife is a fashion designer, gave private tuitions and earned Rs. 80,000 monthly and could easily maintain herself and their son. Interestingly, the wife too had appealed against the order and said that amount was inadequate. She claimed Rs. 50,000 as maintenance and another Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation and told the court that her husband earns Rs. 1 lakh monthly.
The court came to the conclusion from previous income tax returns filed by the wife, that her net income monthly only came to Rs. 12,000. Additional Sessions Judge UM Padwad said in his order that the maintenance of Rs. 15,000 monthly to the wife seems inadequate as the husband can never escape the liability to maintain the wife with the standard commensurate with his status. The court also considered that she was required to pay Rs. 30,000 as instalment for their joint ownership flat in Dadar for which he was not contributing.
The husband had argued that the son was an adult while objecting to paying maintenance for his upkeep. “The husband instead of taking care of his (son’s) education tries to make a capital of him being a major now. Still, a father cannot be allowed to escape the liability to look after the welfare of his major son, particularly, his education expenses,” Judge Padwad stated.
