A Delhi sessions court dismissed a man's appeal against a trial court order that directed attachment of his salary for his failure to pay maintenance to his wife.
"I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order," additional sessions judge Surinder Kumar Sharma said while upholding a magisterial court’s order for attaching Ghazibad resident Vinay Kumar's salary.
The magisterial court in November 2010 had ordered attachment of Kumar's salary for his failure to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 2,000 to his wife Madhu Bala.
It had ordered Kumar to pay maintenance to his wife on a plea by her under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Although Kumar and Bala married in 2004 as per Hindu rites, they started living separately soon after and Bala moved court for maintenance.
The court in September 2009 had directed Kumar to pay her an interim maintenance. As no money was sent, Bala moved court for execution of the order. This resulted in the magisterial court attaching Kumar's salary on November 3, 2010.
In his appeal, Kumar submitted to the sessions court that he sent some money orders which were returned back with the postal note that Bala was not present at the given address.
Dismissing Kumar's petition, the sessions court noted that the records placed before it showed that neither did Kumar appear in magisterial court nor did he make any payment.