E-Paper
Court orders govt peon to pay ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to wife, son
The court also told him to pay ₹25,000 compensation for mental and physical harassment, following a legal battle spanning more than 10 years.
Prefer HTon Google
Pune: A Pimpri court has directed a peon working in the office of the deputy engineer (inspection), Osmanabad, to pay ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and son, besides ₹25,000 compensation for mental and physical harassment, following a legal battle spanning more than 10 years.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Sharad N Gawali passed the order on November 2, while partly allowing an application filed by his wife Geeta Parimal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The court directed Avinash Parimal to pay ₹7,500 each per month to his wife and son from the date of the final order. It also ordered him to clear arrears from January 6, 2016, when the application was filed, at the rate of ₹5,000 per month for his wife and ₹3,000 for his son. Any interim maintenance already paid will be deducted.
Geeta had alleged that her husband failed to provide for basic household needs, stayed away from their rented accommodation and subjected her to physical, verbal and economic abuse. She also accused him of threatening her, demanding jewellery and household articles from her parental family, and assaulting their child.
Avinash denied the allegations, claiming that his wife and her family had harassed him financially and mentally. He also cited his responsibilities towards his visually impaired mother and sister.
The court noted that the appeal against the divorce decree obtained by Avinash was pending before the district court in Osmanabad. It held that the pending proceedings did not prevent Geeta from seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
While assessing maintenance, the court noted that Avinash’s affidavit disclosed a gross monthly salary of ₹34,843 and that he had admitted to earning ₹25,000 during cross-examination. In the absence of salary slips, the court assessed his monthly income at a minimum of ₹40,000. It rejected his claim that his mother was entirely dependent on him, noting that she received an annual family pension of ₹79,548 through the treasury office.
The court rejected Geeta’s demands for separate accommodation and ₹10 lakh compensation, finding insufficient evidence to grant the reliefs.
Advocates Rajjat Agrawal and LK Jhunjhunwala appeared for the applicants, while Raju Madhavan and Walecha represented the husband.
