The Bombay high court not only thwarted a businessman father's attempt to wriggle out of his duty to provide maintenance to his minor son after his wife's death, but instead increased the maintenance. A division bench of justices Abhay Oka and Girish Kulkarni directed the father to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to his son, who is being raised by his maternal uncle following his mother's death in 2001.
The petition was filed by the eight-year-old son through his uncle, seeking increase in monthly maintenance from Rs 2,000, awarded by the family court in October 2008. The HC has directed the father to deposit the arrears since 2008 in the son's bank account within one week. The monthly maintenance from the month of November has to be deposited before the 10th of every month. The judges have also asked the businessman to pay Rs25,000 towards litigation cost to the maternal uncle.
The petition was filed through advocates Prem Gidwani and Rita Panjwani praying that the father be directed to pay maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month. According to the petition, the marriage took place in a grand manner in Rajasthan in June 1998 and her parents gifted Rs2 lakh cash, gold ornaments of about 50 tolas worth about Rs2 lakhs, 2 kilograms of silver utensils, 141 silver coins, Sony colour TV, washing machine and various other household items.
The uncle has claimed in the petition that despite all these demands having been met, the businessman harassed his sister, even after the son was born. On December 5, 2001, the woman was admitted to local hospital in Rajasthan with serious burn injuries. As there was no change in her condition, she was shifted to a hospital in Mumbai where she succumbed to her injuries.
The son, who was two-and-half-year-old has been staying with his maternal uncle since then. The businessman did not pay any money for the upbringing of the child, claimed the petition. The petition claims that the businessman was earning more than Rs 10 lakh a month as he owns two shops and was involved in other businesses.
The businessman opposed the petition through advocate Rajesh Khobragade claiming that the allegations of demanding dowry and about his income were false and frivolous. He counter claimed that the shops belonged to his father and that he was a mere salesman and that he had re-married and had a wife and two children to support.
The businessman was confronted with a criminal application filed by him before a sessions court at Mumbai where he stated that he is a businessman and sells sarees and material all over India. The judges observed that the evidence clearly indicates that businessman has been changing his versions from time to time. "It also indicates that the respondent (businessman) has done this with the object of avoiding his liability to pay maintenance to the appellant-his minor son. It can also be gathered that the respondent has in fact made false statement on oath before the family court that he is earning a salary and that he is not a businessman, which is very serious," said HC.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}