E-Paper
Punjab and Haryana HC allows maintenance plea after 30-yrs of mutual settlement by estranged couple
Nearly thirty years after signing of a compromise on alimony by an estranged couple of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana high court has allowed monthly maintenance of ₹ 15,000 to the woman.
Nearly thirty years after signing of a compromise on alimony by an estranged couple of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana high court has allowed monthly maintenance of ₹ 15,000 to the woman.
The high court bench of justice Amarjot Bhatti observed that the plea seeking maintenance by the woman was fully justified as she had to take care of her children and to “lead a respectable life”.
They had got married in September 1983 and had two children --son born in 1984 and a daughter in 1987. After marriage, due to their matrimonial dispute, they started living separately in July 1993 and in August the alimony matter was settled through a written compromise as per which husband paid ₹ 1 lakh each to wife, daughter and the son and as full and final settlement of claim regarding their past, present and future claim along with ₹ 1500 per month as rent.
However, in 2007, the woman approached a court in Pathankot seeking maintenance and after multiple rounds of dismissals and re-hearings, in December 2016, a court granted maintenance of ₹ 15,000 per month. It was this order which was under challenge in HC. The woman, 62 is now retired as teacher, the daughter is a MBBS doctor and son an IT professional living abroad.
The husband in high court had argued that he complied with all the terms and conditions of compromise of 1993. Hence, he was not liable to pay maintenance.
The woman’s plea in 2007 had said that she had to fund studies of her children and she did not have any movable or immovable property, whereas the husband owned a hotel and shopping centre and his earning was ₹ 1 lakh per month.
On the other hand, the husband had submitted that he funded studies of the children and the woman worked as a teacher and got a salary of ₹ 17,000 per month. The hotel had to be sold to his brother. He had claimed that his monthly income was ₹ 6,000 per month and had also submitted income tax returns for the year 2013-2014 showing his income in the range ₹ 1 lakh and ₹ 1.5 lakh.
The court, however, did not agree and observed that it was not possible for a lady and her two children to survive in a meager amount of ₹ 3 lakh. Therefore, the woman was justified in filing the present petition claiming maintenance as she was to look-after their daily expenditure, food, clothing, transportation, medical expenditure as and when required and other social obligations. Therefore, it cannot be said that she could not have filed petition for maintenance. The court also took note of the fact that the woman had not concealed any fact about her income and now since she had retired does not even get a pension.
The other important aspect of the case is financial status of the woman and her estranged husband, the court recorded adding that the woman does not have any movable and immovable property. The husband tried to nullify all the sources of income cited by the woman. The matrimonial dispute was going on between the parties since July, 1993. The petitioner husband in order to avoid the responsibility to pay maintenance has tried to explain that he has sold his entire business to his brother, the court said adding that it was clear that the husband was a businessman having income from different resources. So, in these circumstances, the income could be assessed only by way of “guess work”.
