In a metro like Delhi, Rs 12K maintenance not too much: Court

A court here has refused to set aside an order directing a man to pay Rs 12,000 as monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and child in a domestic violence case, saying the amount was not excessive in view of the inflation and rising prices in a city like Delhi.
The sessions court, while dismissing the appeal of the man, a DMRC official, also observed that it is the duty of an able-bodied husband to maintain his legally-wedded wife and children.
"Interim maintenance to the tune of Rs 12,000 per month for herself and for her child cannot be said to be excessive, keeping in view of the inflation in the market and rising prices in the metropolitan cities like Delhi," Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar said.

The court said "respondent (wife) being legally-wedded wife of the appellant (accused), is liable to be maintained by him. It is the duty of the able-bodied husband to maintain his wife and children."
The appeal was filed by Ghaziabad resident Anil Kumar contending that the trial court did not consider his burden and liabilities while pronouncing the award.
The sessions court, however, upheld the award saying there were no illegalities or irregularities in the verdict.

"It has transpired from the record file that the aggrieved is not having any source of income. Further, she has one minor child dependent on her," it said.

According to prosecution, the complainant had filed a dowry harassment case against her husband and in-laws and the trial court had directed Anil to pay maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month to her after considering his salary slip.
The trial court had also asked Anil, a technician with the Delhi metro, to clear the arrears within six months.
In his appeal, Anil's counsel contended that the trial court had not considered the fact that appellant has liability of his parents, three unmarried dependent sisters and a minor son.
However, the sessions court asked him to approach the trial court to prove the dependency and other liabilities claimed by him.

"He is at liberty to prove the dependency of the other family members upon by adducing evidence before the trial court," it said.