According to a family court in Bandra, a woman should be reasonable while asking for compensation amount over and above the monthly maintenance.
Judge IM Bohari granted maintenance of Rs5,000 per month to a woman after she proved the adultery charge against her husband. The judge however, rejected her plea for an additional amount of Rs10 lakh for a separate house and medical expenses, saying that the same was unreasonable as she had not shown sufficient evidence that the husband earned so much money.
"As far as prayer for separate residence and medical expenses of Rs10 lakh is concerned, no sufficient evidence is adduced on that score," observed the judge.
The wife had approached the family court through advocate JP Tiwari, seeking maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also for an additional amount of Rs10 lakh.
The duo's marriage was solemnised in April 1972 as per Hindu Vedic rites in UP and they have two sons.
The woman alleged that the husband had neglected her and their children for over 12 years as he developed illicit relations with another woman. She claimed that she is illiterate and has no source of income.
The husband, who is working with the Indian Railways, draws a salary of Rs25,000 per month. Also, he has income from other sources like interest on his bank deposits.
The judge had referred them to a marriage counselor, who reported that reconciliation was not possible. The husband neither filed an affidavit nor remained present during the hearings.
The wife submitted her estranged husband's salary slip for August 2013 and photocopy of Form G 346 F G 346 F filed by him with the Indian Railways.
The salary slip showed that his gross salary was Rs32,557 and after a deduction of Rs 15,162, he received a net salary of Rs17,395.
Agreeing with the neglect part, the judge observed that the husband had appeared only on three occasions before the court and thereafter failed to be present.
"Therefore, the petitioner's desertion without any reasonable cause and without the petitioner's consent is proved," observed judge Bohari.
The judge further observed that there was no liability on the shoulders of the husband, except the alleged affair with the other woman. "Normal rule for the wife's entitlement for maintenance is 1/3rd of the respondent's income. Considering the standard of living of the parties, I am of the view that maintenance at Rs5000 per month from the month of petition will meet the real ends of justice," added the judge.
){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}