Court lowers maintenance amount

A Delhi court has reduced the interim maintenance amount from Rs 45,000 to Rs 30,000 per month to be given by a man to his estranged wife and child on the ground that she exaggerated the expenses to be incurred on the kid.
Additional Sessions Judge Umed Singh Grewal said the woman did not disclose the reason for leaving her job and the facts of the case showed that either she was a working woman or she has the capacity to work.
The court reduced the interim maintenance amount by Rs 15,000 per month and allowed an appeal filed by the man, a resident of Delhi, against the order of a trial court which had asked him to pay maintenance of Rs 45,000 per month.

"Appellant (man) is to maintain his mother and sister. He has not disputed his salary. Total monthly expenses to be incurred on the child have been calculated by the respondent (woman) as Rs 22,000 per month. It is an exaggerated amount. She did not assign any reason why she gave up the job of a school teacher. She is capable of earning.
"....These facts show that either the respondent wife is a working lady or she has capacity to work. She has exaggerated the expenses to be incurred on the child. Taking into account all these facts, impugned order is modified and the husband is directed to pay he wife interim maintenance Rs 30,000 per month," Grewal said.

The court noted that as per the profile of the woman on a professional networking website, she has described herself as a teacher in a private school here. It also said there was an advertisement on the Internet in which the woman has been shown as a business partner of a play school.

The woman had sought maintenance alleging that she and their child was harassed by her husband, who was holding a high position in a private bank and was earning Rs three lakh per month.
She had alleged that her husband owns several properties and she was not working anywhere.

The man, however, in his reply said he was earning Rs 1.13 lakh per month and his wife was also working as a teacher in a school till March 2012 and was earning Rs 12,000 per month.
He argued that she concealed this fact from the court and expenses shown to be incurred on the child could not be accepted as true.