New Delhi: A Delhi court has asked a man to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to his estranged wife and two minor daughters saying that being an able-bodied man, he has "the legal and moral duty" to maintain them.
The court ordered the man to pay the amount saying that the persons involved in such cases do not disclose their real incomes and in this case too, the husband appears to have done so.
"Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their incomes. For self-employed persons or persons employed in unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude.
"In the present case also, the man is a self-employed person and it appears that he has not disclosed his true income," Metropolitan Magistrate Priya Mahendra said.
The court directed the man, a resident of Hamidpur village here, to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his estranged wife and give Rs 5,000 per month to his two daughters considering that he is the owner of number of lands and it is not possible for him to maintain such properties without having good income.
"Being an able-bodied man, the man has the legal and moral duty to maintain his wife and minor daughters. Therefore, the aggrieved person (woman) and her children are entitled to interim reliefs," it said.
The court`s order came on a plea by the man`s estranged wife who had sought the alimony saying she was "maltreated" by her husband and in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry and also for not bearing a male child.
The woman, in her petition, had said their marriage was solemnised in February 1999 and after the marriage, she used to reside at her matrimonial house at village Hamidpur here.
She said right from the beginning of their marriage, she was maltreated and tortured by her husband and in-laws for not bringing enough dowry and was beaten up mercilessly by them on a number of occasions.
She added that she also had to get a case registered against them for subjecting her to cruelty as she was persistently called names for giving birth to girls.
The man, in his reply, denied all the allegations and said that he and his family members had never raised any demand for dowry and had always treated her well.
He said their marital life was ruined due to the constant interference by her father and brothers.
The court, however, asked him to pay maintenance saying, "considering the income and means of the man and needs of aggrieved person (woman) and her minor children, the man is directed to pay sum of Rs 5,000 per month to the woman towards maintenance and sum of Rs 5,000 per month towards maintenance of her two minor school going daughters."