Chef to give Rs 13K alimony to wife
17 Dec 2012 1:26 AM GMT
A man working as chef in a five- star hotel here has been ordered by a Delhi court to pay an interim alimony of Rs 13,000 per month to his estranged wife.
Additional Sessions Judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the man’s appeal against an order of a trial court which had directed him to pay Rs 10,000 as maintenance and Rs 3,000 as accommodation charges per month to his wife.
Upholding the magisterial court’s order, the ASJ said the man, a Madhya Pradesh native, has the ‘financial means’ to pay interim alimony to his estranged wife whom he had married in November last year.
While asking the man, who was earlier working as a chef in Bangkok, to pay interim maintenance to his wife, the court said his rent agreement showed he was paying a rent of Rs 8,500 per month for his rental accommodation.
‘Keeping in view this rate of rent paid by the appellant (man) and the fact that he is a ‘chef,’ I am of opinion that he has the financial means to pay the interim maintenance and the amount in lieu of accommodation as awarded by the trial court,’ the judge said.
The man had approached the sessions court, saying he cannot pay alimony to his wife as presently he was not working or earning anything and he was also willing to keep her in his house but it was she who does not wish to reside with him.
The woman had sought maintenance, saying just after their marriage, the man and his family members started making dowry demands and used abusive language against her. She said the man has worked in various hotels as a chef and earlier he was working in Bangkok where his monthly salary was 1.5 lakh. Presently, he is working in a five-star hotel here while she has no means of livelihood, she said.
The man, however, had denied that he was a chef and that his monthly salary was Rs 1.5 lakh in Bangkok. He said in Bangkok he was earning only Rs 20,000 per month and alleged it was his wife who had harassed and humiliated him.
The court, however,said the man’s reply was ‘vague’ and does not inspire confidence as he has not disclosed his income while working in various hotels.
It dismissed his appeal, saying it was without any merits. ‘Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of May 14, 2012 of the trial court and the order is upheld. The appeal is dismissed without being having any merits,’ the judge said.
Additional Sessions Judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the man’s appeal against an order of a trial court which had directed him to pay Rs 10,000 as maintenance and Rs 3,000 as accommodation charges per month to his wife.
Upholding the magisterial court’s order, the ASJ said the man, a Madhya Pradesh native, has the ‘financial means’ to pay interim alimony to his estranged wife whom he had married in November last year.
While asking the man, who was earlier working as a chef in Bangkok, to pay interim maintenance to his wife, the court said his rent agreement showed he was paying a rent of Rs 8,500 per month for his rental accommodation.
‘Keeping in view this rate of rent paid by the appellant (man) and the fact that he is a ‘chef,’ I am of opinion that he has the financial means to pay the interim maintenance and the amount in lieu of accommodation as awarded by the trial court,’ the judge said.
The man had approached the sessions court, saying he cannot pay alimony to his wife as presently he was not working or earning anything and he was also willing to keep her in his house but it was she who does not wish to reside with him.
The woman had sought maintenance, saying just after their marriage, the man and his family members started making dowry demands and used abusive language against her. She said the man has worked in various hotels as a chef and earlier he was working in Bangkok where his monthly salary was 1.5 lakh. Presently, he is working in a five-star hotel here while she has no means of livelihood, she said.
The man, however, had denied that he was a chef and that his monthly salary was Rs 1.5 lakh in Bangkok. He said in Bangkok he was earning only Rs 20,000 per month and alleged it was his wife who had harassed and humiliated him.
The court, however,said the man’s reply was ‘vague’ and does not inspire confidence as he has not disclosed his income while working in various hotels.
It dismissed his appeal, saying it was without any merits. ‘Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of May 14, 2012 of the trial court and the order is upheld. The appeal is dismissed without being having any merits,’ the judge said.
Next Story
