HC rejects man’s plea against support to second wife

Pune court asked him to pay ₹5,000 as maintenance, ₹3,000 for rent after divorce

The Bombay High Court recently rejected a man’s plea challenging a lower court order passed in 2017 directing him to pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to his second wife and ₹3,000 for rent, for harassing her and giving her a divorce.

Akhtar Jafar Bagwan and his second wife got married on June 29, 2014, as per Muslim rituals. Soon after, Mr. Bagwan started insisting that she leave her daughter from her first marriage in an orphanage. He started beating her and stopped giving her food. He also stopped paying the rent and money for his wife’s livelihood.

She filed several criminal complaints as she was unable to financially maintain herself, and then filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune. The court on March 27, 2017, directed Mr. Bagwan to pay ₹5,000 as maintenance and ₹3,000 towards rent. Mr. Bagwan appealed against this order before a sessions court, which was dismissed on December 8, 2017. He then moved the HC on January 16, 2018, seeking dismissal of the Magistrate’s order.

The advocate appearing for Mr. Bagwan told a single Bench of Justice S.S. Shinde that Mr. Bagwan’s second ex-wife used to threaten him and his first wife, and that she runs a beauty parlour and earns ₹35,000 per month. He said his first wife and four children are surviving on his monthly earning of ₹5,000 and could not pay the said amount for maintenance.

However, the advocate representing the woman informed the court that Mr. Bagwan earns around ₹40,000 per month. He also said the beauty parlour was shut as the licence to run it had not been renewed. Therefore, she has no income.

The HC said, “Directing Mr. Bagwan to pay a compensation of ₹5,000 per month towards interim maintenance and ₹3,000 per month towards rent cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. Therefore, no case is made out for causing interference in the order,” and rejected the petition.

Source: Read Full Article