Maintenance case: Court dismisses man's appeal, slaps 50K cost

A Delhi court has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on a man while dismissing his appeal against a magisterial court order which had directed him to pay Rs 25,000 maintenance per month to his estranged wife and son.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Lokesh Kumar Sharma rejected the appeal of a Bangalore resident, saying it was devoid of any merits and directed him to deposit a cost of Rs 50,000 before the magisterial court within 30 days.
"I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or infirmity can be pointed out in the impugned order (of the magistrate) warranting an interference of this court by virtue of its appellate power and jurisdiction.

"The appeal is, thus, dismissed being devoid of any merits with cost of Rs 50,000, which shall be paid by the man before the magistrate within 30 days...," the ASJ said and upheld the magistrate's order.
The magisterial court had on April 16, 2013 directed the man to pay Rs 10,000 each to his wife and four-year-old son as monthly maintenance and further pay Rs 5,000 as rent for their accommodation. The order was passed on the woman's plea seeking maintenance.
The sessions court rejected the man's submissions that the magistrate took an "erroneous approach" in passing the order.

The court also dismissed his contention that his wife had deserted him in May 2011 but did not file any application under the Domestic Violence Act immediately after that. He had said that his wife filed the application only in December 2012 to extort money from him.

"This contention is baseless as there is no bar at all in law for filing of the application by an aggrieved person of this nature at any time convenient to her," the ASJ said.
The ASJ said, "All these pleas and grounds taken by the appellant (man) before this court are essentially matter of trial which can only be proved or disproved by adducing evidence before the magistrate. Hence, the same cannot be considered at this preliminary stage."
The man had also contended that his income and earnings were ignored by the magisterial court while deciding the maintenance amount.
The ASJ, while upholding the magisterial court's order, noted the magistrate had taken the salary of the man as Rs 50,000 per month from the documents furnished by him and had allowed him to retain half of his total income for himself.