It is unheard of in our society that a man who is already in emotional distress on account of a matrimonial dispute, would be disowned by his parents, the Delhi High Court held while rejecting the claim made by a man in a matrimonial dispute..The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh held, “We find this to be a very common ground taken by the husband, who wishes either to oust his wife from the matrimonial home or to evade payment of maintenance. It is unheard of in our society that a man – who is already in emotional distress on account of matrimonial dispute, would be disowned by his parents. This ground is only stated to be rejected.”.The wife had moved court claiming that the estranged husband hadn’t paid the Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance awarded to her by a family court, since March 2021. The man responded that he had lost his job. He had also claimed that he was disowned by his parents..Counsel appearing for the wife referred to an order dated July 3, 2020, where similar reasons taken by the husband were stated to be rejected, and it was made clear to him that any default on his part in clearing arrears of maintenance would be viewed seriously.The Bench noted that despite the directions, arrears of maintenance hadn’t been cleared since March 2021.“We grant one last opportunity to the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance before the next date, and to continue to pay the maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month without default in future as well,” it ordered..It also came to the Court’s notice that the estranged husband hadn’t challenged the order passed by the family court which granted maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month.“It has also been made clear to the respondent that failure to clear the arrears of maintenance shall invite proceedings for the contempt of Court,” warned the Bench..The developments in the case stem from an appeal filed by the woman challenging the maintenance order of the family court on several grounds. She is stated to have been denied the “right to meet and lead the same lifestyle” as her estranged husband..On July 3, 2020, another bench of the High Court heard the husband’s plea seeking more time to comply with the previous directions asking him to clear arrears with respect to the maintenance. The Bench had then expressed serious reservations about the averments made by the man regarding his salary.According to the record, till 2019, the man was admittedly earning Rs 70,000 a month, but claimed to have resigned from his job during the pendency of the litigation in May 2019. He stated that he earned Rs 40,000 per month in his new job.“Now the respondent expects us to believe that he has got a job where his salary has been reduced to a paltry sum of Rs15,000 per month,” the Bench had remarked. The man thereafter took an undertaking and offered to clear the arrears in four weeks.The Court had cautioned that any default on his part in clearing the arrears of maintenance will be viewed seriously..Advocate Prashant Diwan appeared for the appellant wife, while Advocate Manmeet Singh Maini represented the respondent husband..[Read the order]
It is unheard of in our society that a man who is already in emotional distress on account of a matrimonial dispute, would be disowned by his parents, the Delhi High Court held while rejecting the claim made by a man in a matrimonial dispute..The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh held, “We find this to be a very common ground taken by the husband, who wishes either to oust his wife from the matrimonial home or to evade payment of maintenance. It is unheard of in our society that a man – who is already in emotional distress on account of matrimonial dispute, would be disowned by his parents. This ground is only stated to be rejected.”.The wife had moved court claiming that the estranged husband hadn’t paid the Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance awarded to her by a family court, since March 2021. The man responded that he had lost his job. He had also claimed that he was disowned by his parents..Counsel appearing for the wife referred to an order dated July 3, 2020, where similar reasons taken by the husband were stated to be rejected, and it was made clear to him that any default on his part in clearing arrears of maintenance would be viewed seriously.The Bench noted that despite the directions, arrears of maintenance hadn’t been cleared since March 2021.“We grant one last opportunity to the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance before the next date, and to continue to pay the maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month without default in future as well,” it ordered..It also came to the Court’s notice that the estranged husband hadn’t challenged the order passed by the family court which granted maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month.“It has also been made clear to the respondent that failure to clear the arrears of maintenance shall invite proceedings for the contempt of Court,” warned the Bench..The developments in the case stem from an appeal filed by the woman challenging the maintenance order of the family court on several grounds. She is stated to have been denied the “right to meet and lead the same lifestyle” as her estranged husband..On July 3, 2020, another bench of the High Court heard the husband’s plea seeking more time to comply with the previous directions asking him to clear arrears with respect to the maintenance. The Bench had then expressed serious reservations about the averments made by the man regarding his salary.According to the record, till 2019, the man was admittedly earning Rs 70,000 a month, but claimed to have resigned from his job during the pendency of the litigation in May 2019. He stated that he earned Rs 40,000 per month in his new job.“Now the respondent expects us to believe that he has got a job where his salary has been reduced to a paltry sum of Rs15,000 per month,” the Bench had remarked. The man thereafter took an undertaking and offered to clear the arrears in four weeks.The Court had cautioned that any default on his part in clearing the arrears of maintenance will be viewed seriously..Advocate Prashant Diwan appeared for the appellant wife, while Advocate Manmeet Singh Maini represented the respondent husband..[Read the order]
