However, the Sessions court further held that the man has not challenged the maintenance amount towards his children, thus the order towards his children remains unchanged
A wife who has her own means of living, need not to be maintained by her husband, says Session's court.
The Session's court while deciding on a an appeal application filed by a husband against the orders passed by the Magistrate court where it had asked the man to pay an interim maintenance amount to his wife, the appellant court held that in a case where the wife is having her own means of living, there is no requirement to provide her with an interim maintenance. The court was hearing the appeal filed by a 35 year old Nalasopara based man against his estranged wife. The man had filed an appeal against the orders which were passed by the Vikhroli Metropolitan magistrate court in favor of his wife.
The Sessions court's orders read, "It appears from the salary certificate of the wife that she is drawing a salary of Rs. 17,000 to Rs 18,000 per month. This fact is not taken into consideration by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while granting the interim maintenance of Rs 6,000 to the wife. Prima facie record shows she is having means of living, therefore, she is not entitled for the interim maintenance."
A case of domestic violence (DV) has been filed against the man by his wife before the Vikhroli Metropolitan Magistrate court alleging cruelty. The wife has filed an application under section 23 of the DV act, which states that if the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the man is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the he may commit an act of domestic violence, then the Magistrate may grant an ex parte order against the man.
Based on the same application, the Magistrate had asked the man to pay an interim maintenance amount of Rs 6,000 towards his wife, while Rs 2000 towards his two children individually.
The Session's court further held that the man has not challenged the maintenance amount towards his children, thus the order towards his children remains unchanged.
IN CONTRADICTION
However, the Sessions court further held that the man has not challenged the maintenance amount towards his children, thus the order towards his children remains unchanged
){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}
 "Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}