Court to decide afresh maintenance awarded to woman

The amount of maintenance awarded to a woman in a domestic violence case will be decided afresh by a Delhi court after her husband claimed that her income was more than his earnings.
A direction to this effect was given by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Gautam Manan to a magisterial court.
The judge allowed the man's appeal challenging the magisterial court's order directing him to pay Rs 1,500 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and his children, saying the magistrate had not considered the proof about the woman's income and assets while fixing the amount.
The sessions court also quashed the trial court's order on maintenance to the woman and the couple's two minor sons.

"The (magisterial) court has passed the order awarding maintenance without considering the proof of income of the respondent no 1 (woman) and her assets, if any," the ASJ said.
The judge set aside the order of the magisterial court, saying it "suffers from material irregularity" as the lower court had given its verdict without taking the affidavits of the man and the woman in respect of their income.

"The trial court is directed to decide the quantum of maintenance after taking the affidavits of the parties and after giving due consideration to the rival contentions of the parties in respect of their earnings," the court said.

The man, a resident of Mahipalpur extension here, had challenged the 2013 order of a metropolitan magistrate on the ground that his wife was earning more than him and he was living in a pitiful condition.
He claimed that she was enjoying a much better life than him and she had also forcibly taken possession of his house.
He also denied the allegations of the woman that he subjected her to domestic violence and claimed that instead he was at the receiving end.
He claimed that the award of "relief decided by the magistrate was in a routine and mechanical manner, cornering the provisions of law...Hence, the order be set-aside."

The woman, in her reply through her counsel, opposed the man's plea saying she has to maintain herself and her children and the trial court had rightly awarded the maintenance amount to them.