Delhi court asks man to pay Rs 45,000 maintenance to his second wife, minor son
The Delhi court, however, refused to allow the woman’s plea to enhance the maintenance, saying she failed to lead any evidence regarding his income..delhi Updated: Jun 28, 2017 14:23 IST
A Delhi court has asked a man to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 45,000 to his second wife in a domestic violence case, noting he did not have to maintain his first wife as she was employed.
The court also noted that the man had reconciled with his first wife.
Additional Sessions Judge Vrinda Kumari upheld the lower court’s order asking the man, a Rajasthan resident, to pay the maintenance to his estranged second wife and their minor son.
“The amount of maintenance of appellant aggrieved (second wife) and her minor son must be decided accordingly... The court is unable to find any fault with awarding maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 to woman and Rs 25,000 to minor son,” the judge said.
The court, while rejecting the man’s claim that the maintenance amount was high as he had to maintain his first wife and son, said “the wife and son from the first wedlock were employed and were not dependent on him”.
The court, however, refused to allow the woman’s plea to enhance the maintenance, saying she failed to lead any evidence regarding his income.
According to the complaint filed by the woman, the man married her after allegedly concealing his first wedlock.
It also alleged that he, along with his mother, had taken more than Rs 50 lakh from her to start a business.
The complaint further alleged that they separated after she found out about his first marriage.
Besides maintenance, the woman had sought prohibitory orders to restrict the man and his mother to save herself from domestic violence.
The trial court had granted a maintenance of Rs 45,000 to the woman and the child. She, however, approached the court for enhancement.
Opposing her contentions, the husband claimed that the magisterial court order was passed ex-parte.
This claim was rejected by the court which noted that he failed to apprise about his address despite being repeatedly asked to do so.