Court asks senior citizen to pay Rs 21K maintenance to wife

A retired government servant, who was estranged from his wife after 44 years of marriage and six children, has been directed to pay Rs 21,000 per month as interim maintenance to her by a Delhi court.
The sessions court dismissed the appeal of the man filed against a magisterial court order directing him to pay the money, saying there was no infirmity in the decision and except his wife, nobody else was dependent on him.
"Since the appellant (man) has no dependent except his wife, interim maintenance of Rs 21,000 granted by the trial court is just and fair. In my opinion there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The appeal has no merit and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed," Special Judge Praveen Kumar said.

The court passed the order in a domestic violence case in which the wife, also a senior citizen, has sought maintenance from her estranged husband alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment and cruelty by him.
The man and the woman had got married around 44 years ago in November 1971 and have six children. While the man had retired from service in March 2009, his wife is a housewife.
The man sought setting aside of the trial court order saying his wife was residing with one of their sons who was earning about Rs 1.5 lakh. He also claimed that the woman was earning Rs 20,000 per month.

The woman claimed that the man was now practicing in the Supreme Court and also has professional income.

The court, however, noted that the marriage was not in dispute and the allegations levelled by the parties against each other cannot be looked into at this stage.
"Even if her son is earning well, it does not mean that the man has no responsibility for the maintenance of his wife.
"Before the trial court, during the course of arguments, it was admitted by the man that he got an amount of Rs 22 lakh after retirement which he has invested. It was admitted by him that he is getting Rs 15,000 per month from the interest on the invested amount," the court noted while upholding the interim maintenance amount.