Women out of matrimonial home over dispute need security: Delhi court
A trial court had on January 1 this year directed the man to pay Rs 20,000 per month, towards rent of the alternative accommodation to his estranged wife till the disposal of the domestic violence case filed against him by the woman.delhi Updated: Aug 14, 2017 20:15 IST
Women, who have to leave their matrimonial home over a dispute, should have some financial security, a Delhi court has said while upholding the maintenance granted to a woman by a trial court.
Additional Sessions Judge Deepak Garg said that even if the woman was residing at her parental house, it cannot be said that she should not be granted any maintenance towards her alternate accommodation.
“Itisnecessarythattherehas to besomesecurityfor the women who have to leave the matrimonial house if the atmosphere is not conducive there.
“Even if she is living with her parents, she should feel some security and confidence even to live separately from her mother if circumstances so warrant,” the court said while dismissing her estranged husband’s appeal against the trial court order.
A trial court had on January 1 this year directed the man to pay Rs 20,000 per month, towards rent of the alternative accommodation to his estranged wife till the disposal of the domestic violence case filed against him by the woman.
The man, in his plea, had said that the woman was educated and had enrolled as an advocate in 2006 and hence her claim about her income was false.
The court, however, said that since the matter was pending before the trial court in its preliminary stage, the issue of income claim could be decided only after the evidence is led from both the sides.
“The respondent (woman) can be cross-examined by counsel for the appellant (man) before the trial court on these aspects,” the ASJ said.
According to the complaint, the woman, who got married on May 25, 2014, had alleged that her husband and his family had treated her with utmost cruelty and she was subjected to mental and physical torture, harassment and humiliation for bringing insufficient dowry.
The trial court had said the man was duty-bound to provide for the alternate accommodation at the same level as was enjoyed by her in the shared household and had directed him to pay Rs 20,000 per month to the woman.
First Published: Aug 14, 2017 20:15 IST