Court directs man to pay Rs 9K as maintenance to wife & kids
- Putin gets Russia Senate nod to use military in Ukraine
- Assam woman who attended Rahul event dies of burn injuries, police say she's not the one who kissed him
- Aam Aadmi Party releases third list of candidates for Lok Sabha polls
- Varanasi: Rahul woos rickshawpullers, promises better livelihood
- State Forest Dept guest house is police custody for Sahara chief Subrata Roy
A man has been ordered by a Delhi court to pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs 9000 to his estranged wife and two minor children.
Dismissing the man's appeal against a magisterial court's order for the interim maintenance to his wife and children, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Illa Rawat also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on him for challenging the trial court's order.
The trial court had ordered the husband, a mechanic, to pay Rs 3,000 each to his wife and children for their up-keep.
"I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of June 26, 2011 of the trial court. Accordingly, the said order whereby trial court directed the appellant/husband to pay monthly sum of Rs 3,000 as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and Rs 3,000 each to her two children is hereby upheld," said the ASJ.
"The present appeal filed on behalf of appellant/husband is without merit, hence dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid to respondent within one month from today," it added.
The husband had challenged the trial court's order saying it had not considered his actual income, while his wife too had not filed any proof regarding his income.
He said he was willing to take over the custody of his children, and added that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance as she was working and earning sufficiently.
The court, however, dismissed his plea saying "even the contention taken by appellant that he is ready to take custody of the children appears contrary, when he is not willing to shell out any maintenance for their upkeep."
The sessions court also rejected the man's contention that his mother had also filed a petition claiming maintenance from him.
It is just a "media adopted by him and his family members to evade his liability," the court said.