The Aurangabad Bank of the Bombay High Court has refused to intervene in Nanded Court orders ordering a schoolteacher to pay child support to her ex-husband who claims he has no income.
The lower court in 2017 ordered the wife to pay “Rs 3,000 per month in pending alimony from the date of filing of the application until the completion of the application” to the husband. A similar order was issued in 2019, ordering the principal to “deduct Rs 5,000 from the wife’s monthly salary and remit the amount to the court” after she refused to pay her husband.
Both orders were challenged by the woman in a written application before the Bharati Dangre bench. Judge Dangre said that the application for provisional maintenance made by the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was rightly considered by the judge and the husband was entitled to provisional maintenance while the Section 25 case is pending.
Section 25 of the Act states that the court may order the non-applicant to pay maintenance to the applicant in the form of a lump sum or a monthly amount for life. Section 24 deals with the dependency on maintenance and the costs of the proceedings.
WHY IS?
The man and woman involved in the case married on April 17, 1992. The wife later petitioned for the marriage to be dissolved on charges of cruelty and desertion, and in 2015 the Nanded Court granted the divorce.
The husband then filed an application in a lower court for permanent maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month from the wife. The husband claimed that he had no source of income while the wife had an MA, BEd education and worked in a school.
The husband claimed that in order to encourage the wife to graduate, he ran the household and put aside his own ambition. He claimed he was humiliated and bullied when the wife filed for divorce with dishonest and dishonest intentions.
The husband said he was unemployed, owned no movable or immovable property and had no independent income. He also cited poor health that made it impossible for him to secure a job to earn a living. On the other hand, the wife earned a salary of 30,000 rupees a month and also owned valuable household items and immovable property.
The wife contested the request and told the court that her husband ran a grocery store and also earned an income by renting out his auto rickshaw. She denied that the husband is dependent on the wife. Noting that there is an illegitimate daughter dependent on the wife, she pleaded for denial of the husband’s alimony claim at a cost of Rs 10,000.
Comments are closed.