Person living in penury spoils another life by marrying: CourtThe plea of a man that he cannot pay maintenance to his estranged wife on the ground of being a pauper has been trashed by a Delhi court, which said such people spoil another life by deciding to marry.
The plea of a man that he cannot pay Rs 7,500 as maintenance per month to his estranged wife on the ground of being a "pauper" has been trashed by a Delhi court, which said such people spoil another life by deciding to marry.
The observation was made by Additional Sessions Judge Manoj Jain while dismissing the appeal by a northwest Delhi resident against an August 2015 magisterial court order, asking him to pay the maintenance amount to his wife, on the ground of delay beyond the stipulated 18-month period for approaching it.
"If one goes through his affidavit, it would rather show that he is virtually a pauper living in acute penury. It really beats my imagination as to why he ventured into matrimonial alliance and thought of spoiling one more life, if he is not in a position to maintain himself," the judge said.
The ADJ dismissed the appeal against the order, asking him to pay Rs 7,500 as maintenance to his wife, saying his only aim was to delay the alimony.
"The appellant (husband) cannot be permitted to take things for granted. He has attempted to explain the delay of around 18 months by baldly claiming that he could not arrange the funds... His only aim is to delay the inevitable on one pretext or another," the court said.
Holding that he had woken up from slumber after the stipulated period, Jain refused to show any lenience to the man as it would unjustifiably compound the misery of the woman who had knocked the court's door in 2011 to get her legitimate dues.
The court also noted that it was difficult to believe his affidavit, which said that he did not even possess a mobile phone.
The trial court had on August 1, 2015 asked the man to pay Rs 7,500 to his wife every month as maintenance based on a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act in 2011.
The court also noted that even though the order was passed in 2015, he preferred the appeal only in April 2017.