The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the Nanded civil court and directed a woman to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000 to her ex-husband. Through the learned bench consisting of Bharati Dangre in the case of Bhagyashri w/o. Jagdish Jaiswal Versus Jagdish (WRIT PETITION NO.2527 OF 2021)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The pair wed on April 17, 1992, and on January 17, 2015, the court granted a divorce after the lady filed a lawsuit citing abuse and abandonment. Following the divorce, the ex-husband petitioned the wife for Rs 15,000 in monthly permanent alimony, stating he had no other means of support. The man asserted that his ex-wife worked at a high school.
The ex-husband asserted that he ran the household while setting aside his personal goals to motivate the woman to finish her education. As the wife filed for divorce with “malafide and dishonest aim,” he continued, he endured harassment and humiliation throughout the marriage. He further asserted that he had no income, no real estate, was not in good health, and was unemployed. According to the ex-testimony husbands in court, the woman was alleged to have an immovable property and a monthly salary of Rs 30,000.
The Nanded civil judge, however, found the ex-petition husband’s to be maintainable in August 2017 and mandated that the woman pay interim maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month up till the permanent alimony claim is settled. Another decision issued by the civil judge in December 2019 instructed the headmaster of the school where the lady works to take Rs 5,000 from her salary each month and deposit it in the civil court pending the resolution of the ex-claim husband’s for the recovery of maintenance arrears.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT:
After perusing submissions, Justice Dangre observed in the favor ex-husband and stated, “Section 25 (Permanent Alimony and Maintenance) of the 1955 Act has to be looked upon as a provision for destitute wife/husband; the provisions will have to be construed widely to salvage the remedial entailments, the contention of the wife’s counsel cannot be accepted. It is open for the court to decide… by way of final proceedings, pending which the application for interim maintenance filed under Section 24 of the 1955 Act has been rightly entertained by the Civil Judge, and the husband has been held entitled to interim maintenance while the proceedings under Section 25 are pending.”
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, and best civil lawyer.
Judgement reviewed by – Sudarshana Jha