DelhiRajasthanDH Latest NewsDH NEWSLatest NewsIndiaNEWSJobsPolitics

‘Qualified dentist is not eligible for financial aid from estranged husband’; HC

A court in Mumbai granted relief to the son of a two-time MLA from Rajasthan who died a year ago, ruling that his estranged wife is not entitled to maintenance because she is a qualified dentist. ‘She resides in a metropolitan city, Mumbai,’ said Borivali Magistrate SP Kekan. As a dentist, she has numerous opportunities. In the present case, such a qualified woman is not entitled to maintenance from her husband.

The wife had initiated legal action under the 2005 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. During the pendency of the proceeding, she petitioned the court for interim relief in the form of a protection order, maintenance for herself and her 5-year-old son, one-year-old daughter, and other interim relief in the form of money from her husband.

The wife, who lived with her parents in Mumbai, had left her matrimonial home in Rajasthan, claiming abuse from her husband and his family. All of the allegations of abuse were denied by the husband. He claimed that the wife had left the house for her second pregnancy. Despite efforts, she did not return.

The wife had demanded a house. The property was described as ground plus first floor and terrace with a total area of 3,500 sqft. It is a villa with seven bedrooms, a hall, and a kitchen, five bathrooms, and a garden in front of the house, as well as a parking space. The husband’s family owned four cars, one motorcycle, and one car requested and given by the wife’s brother. The family also owned farmland. The wife requested Rs1,10,800 in monthly maintenance for herself and two children, with Rs40,000 in expected house rent.

The husband, a businessman, stated that the wife could support herself and the children if custody was granted. He even denied having a regular monthly income of Rs 2 lakh, as claimed by his wife. The magistrate saw that the wife was looking for housing in Mumbai rather than Rajasthan and ruled against her. She has been living with her parents, which means the wife is residing in a house where she has every right to live because the law treats daughter and son equally.

‘In my considered opinion,’ he said, ‘the wife is not entitled to any relief as a result of a residence order’. The court, on the other hand, reminded the husband that he was obligated to support the children. To be sure, he has not spent any money on his children. The court ordered that the husband pay Rs 10,000 per month for the maintenance of each son and daughter to the wife.



Post Your Comments

Back to top button