Pune, July 8, 2024: Amid constant marital discord, a husband filed for divorce from his wife in the Pune court, where surprisingly, it ruled in his favour. Considering the financial situation of both the parties and the evidence of the wife's extramarital affair, the court denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that it was not the husband's moral responsibility to take care of her. However, maintenance was awarded to their daughter.
Family Court Judge Raghvendra Aradhye delivered the verdict, ordering that the daughter be paid Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance from the date of filing the suit until the decision on the petition.
Suresh and Surekha (names changed) were married on December 29, 1996 and have two children, a son and a daughter. Soon after their marriage, minor quarrels began. Suresh was fed up with the constant quarrels and filed for divorce in the family court through advocate Gauri Deshpande. Surekha then demanded Rs 50,000 in maintenance from her husband.
Both parties submitted income information and documents to support their claims. Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court observed, “The income tax returns filed in the suit sufficiently demonstrate the financial capabilities of both parties. Although Surekha's conversations with a third person and the photographs she sent are concerning, it is not appropriate to draw any definitive conclusions at this time. However, in our opinion, it is offensive. Considering all these factors, taking care of the wife is not the moral responsibility of the husband.”
Lawyer Gauri Deshpande, representing Suresh, commented, “If the wife has an extramarital affair, her moral or financial responsibility does not lie with the husband. The court rejected her plea for maintenance as she is also an earner. Nevertheless, the court recognised that the financial responsibility for the daughter lies with the highly educated father and ordered that the husband should pay Rs 5,000 per month for her maintenance. Such judgments are significant in cases initiated solely on the grounds of harassment of the husband.”
Comments are closed.