E-Paper
Pune family court denies maintenance to working wife; orders man to pay ₹10K monthly for minor son
The court emphasised that maintaining a child is the “equal responsibility of both parents.” While the mother is earning, the father cannot be absolved of his duties
A family court in Pune has dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, ruling that the allegations were not proved and denied her claim for personal maintenance, observing that she is capable of maintaining herself, being highly qualified and employed at a major Information Technology (IT) firm. However, the court directed the husband to contribute ₹10,000 per month towards the upbringing of their minor son.
The matter was decided on December 22, and the copy of the order was made available on January 23.
The verdict was delivered by Judge KV Thakur. Advocate Abhideep Khaladkar represented the petitioner (wife), while Advocate Yogendra Kumar and Advocate Arun Longani represented the respondent (husband).
The petitioner, a 29-year-old woman from Wadgaonsheri had filed for divorce against her husband, a 34-year-old man from Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar), on the grounds of cruelty. She also filed a separate petition demanding maintenance for herself and their son.
The couple married on July 29, 2020, in Ahmednagar. The petitioner alleged that shortly after the marriage, her husband and in-laws harassed her for a monetary demand of ₹3 lakh. She further alleged that her husband was addicted to alcohol, physically assaulted her even during her pregnancy, and had an illicit relationship with a relative.
The respondent husband, who works in flex printing and as an estate agent, denied all allegations. He contended that his wife had a quarrelsome nature and had left the matrimonial home without a valid reason. He claimed he had made multiple attempts to reconcile, which she refused.
Judge Thakur dismissed the divorce petition, stating that the petitioner failed to prove the allegations of cruelty. The court observed that the disputes appeared to be normal wear and tear of married life rather than severe cruelty.
Regarding the allegations of an illicit relationship and dowry harassment, the court found the evidence provided by the wife, including the testimony of her brother, insufficient and unconvincing. Consequently, the court ruled that the wife was not entitled to a divorce decree. Regarding the maintenance claim, the court noted that the wife is highly qualified (holding a BSc in Maths) and employed at an IT company, earning a salary of approximately ₹28,000 per month in 2022.
However, the court emphasised that maintaining a child is the “equal responsibility of both parents.” While the mother is earning, the father cannot be absolved of his duties.
The court ordered the man to pay ₹10,000 per month towards the maintenance of his son, with a 10% annual increase.
