The Delhi high court has ruled that alimony should be decided based on the income and assets of a man, not his parents.
The Delhi high court has ruled that alimony should be decided based on the income and assets of a man, not his parents.
“After attaining self-sufficiency and being employed, a man’s income has to be the basis for fixing maintenance to his dependents, whether wife, parents or children. Properties of his brothers or parents cannot be the basis for fixing maintenance,” justice SN Dhingra said.
He was hearing Amit Khanna’s appeal against a trial court order asking him to pay Rs30,000 a month to estranged wife Priyanka, apart from Rs15,000 rent.
Dhingra said, “There may be many cases where a man is egoistic and does not take help from his rich parents or rich brother and does not maintain the same status which his rich brother and parents may maintain.”
He said mere allegations by a woman that her husband is a man of status and has vast movable and immovable properties were no justification for the court to pass an order for maintenance beyond his means. “Even for passing an interim order, the allegations must be substantiated by documentary evidence,” Dhingra said.
“Properties in the name of sister-in-law, mother or father cannot be considered properties of spouses. If such properties are considered properties of the husband, properties in the name of the wife’s father, mother, brother or sister could reflect her status and income, and the courts can think that the wife has sufficient properties and thus does not need maintenance,” he observed, while fixing Rs15,000 maintenance and Rs5,000 rent for Priyanka.
Pointing out that Amit and Priyanka married after an eight-year courtship, Dhingra said, “I don’t think this courtship or love was there between the parties before marriage because of the status of the brothers of the husband or the status of his parents.
“It has to be presumed that love was with the person, not with the property, and it is the income and wealth of the husband which is to be looked at by the court to decide maintenance. When the husband’s monthly income was Rs41,000, granting maintenance plus rent of Rs45,000 was unjustified.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}