Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Wife gets pittance from businessman after 28 yrs. of divorce


SOURCE - https://www.indianexpress.com/news/28-yrs-after-divorce--woman-gets-alimony/769490/



28 yrs after divorce, woman gets alimony


A court has granted maintenance to a woman nearly three decades after she divorced her husband. The courts took 17 years to decide the woman’s maintenance plea that she had filed in April 1995, 12 years after the divorce, due to lack of awareness on her legal rights.

As the case lingered on, her son attained adulthood.

On March 25, Additional Sessions Judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta finally ordered Tilak Nagar resident Inderjeet Singh, a former IAF sergeant, to pay maintenance to his former wife Jasbir Kaur, dismissing his appeal against a magisterial court’s order of May 26, 2010.

The magisterial court had asked him to pay her Rs 3,000 per month from the date of her filing the application in April 1995.

The court had also ordered him to pay, with retrospective effect, Rs 3,000 per month to his son “from December 1985 to November 1996, when he attained adulthood”.



Kaur was married to Singh in February 1978; the couple divorced on March 14, 1983 on mutual consent. In her plea for maintenance, Kaur had alleged that she divorced Singh as per the provisions for divorce by mutual consent, which her in-laws had secured from her under duress.

When the magistrate ordered Singh to pay maintenance, he moved the sessions court challenging the order, citing insufficient means of income.

But during the deposition by Kaur and her son, the court found that Singh ran an eatery and had a shop, while his second wife ran a beauty parlour. The court concluded that Singh had substantial income to maintain his former wife.



Learning

 5 Replies

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     12 April 2011

@ Meenal
 

1.
It is under "change in circumstances" the award was given. However if mutual consent earlier done then why this lady is crying foul on duress after 28 years and what was so compelling for her to remain un-married all these two decades ?



2. That is why I say to men folks here that if you are going in for mutual consent ensure that your ex madam is 'fixed up' with another bakara before second motion otherwise these revival are bound to happen.

 


(Guest)

to marry or not to marry is not a question.It is her personal matter.Generally women fear to marry again after failure of first marriage neither they can offer the place of former husband to an another man specially when they have kids.

But TAJ jI..your idea is (2nd point) a good one for husbands.It would help them to escape from performing duties towards kids too....(like this husband)...but der hi sahi.............:)

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     12 April 2011

@ Utpala

You are wrong in generating such ideas.
Reasoning: A father can never escape from such duties read as liabilities. However before Legislative intent under 'change of circumstances" if first wife remains unmarried post divorce then such Judgments comes which is not wrong is what I mentioned and gave suggestion to 'fix her up" and now if you say marry and or not marry is not a question then you are wrong in advising so. Why a women taking divorce at young age shall not marry again even if you see societal structure which you women brag here tell me so!. Will society sees such women in right light that you are saying that it is not a question. Common you are confused person and trying to give your personal views not social read with legal views is what I feel by your above haste comment.


And as far as escape comment is concerned re-read my para 1 where I pointed out how she got it i.e. under 'change of circumstances' so what is wrong in such correct interpretation of Law. However, once you lay hands on full text of re. judgment read yourself the reasoning of Judge, it will be only under "change of circumstances" and nothing else but media says “man of means” which is wrong interpretation of Law. 


BTW I am not a zalim singh here as made out by you !

hema (law officer)     12 April 2011

All the MCDs are not mutual consent divorce cases in its real sense. All the provisions in contracts reached by husband and wife "with their eyes wide open and in the open court" are neither  holistic nor free from threats, false promises and duresses.  


(Guest)

yes .If women gets married after divorce then it is good for society (practically for woman too)!\. but common  indian women can't do this.

I have gone thru many of your posts  whrere  u saw your love fr kids.So I know u r nt a ZALIM singh!

But whatever be the reason, a father/mother (who is responsible fr bringing the child to this world) should always try to stay with the kid.It is my opinion.

If a woman has to file maintenance case against own father of a child ,then how wuold she believe a diffrernt person?Would the new father love the kid?

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register