Dear Sir, 13/09/2014
Sir I am facing the case of CRPC 125 AND DV act at present and in CRPC 125 the maintenance to the wife has been rejected by the court but awarded for the son 9000/-
Judge rejected the INTERIM maintenance of wife as she is working and earning SUFFICIENTLY and not dependent on any one.
But in case of maintenance to son has not taken this aspect that when she is earning it should also be paid by her proportionately as per various high court judgment for the welfare of child. This shows the favour of the judge.
THIS IS MOST CONTRADICTORY DECISION THAT ON ONE SIDE COURT IS DECIDING THAT WIFE IS WORKING NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INETRIM MANITENANCE AND ON OTHER SIDE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS REALITY FOR SHARING THE PROPORTINATE MAINTENANCE WITH HUSBAND FOR THE SON
Case is pending for final decision.
------------------------------
Another is DV ACT in which the judge has rejected our discharge application of my parents and sister though they had lived only for 15 days in the year 2003 and rest of the time ( only hardly one year wife had lived with me out of 10 years of my marriage life and she had lived 9 years and still living with her parents).Further my wife had lived with me because my permanent service was out of my home town and thus we lived separately from my parents.
As per act AND DECISION OF HIGH COURT living should be continuously but judge has neglected and ignored this fact for favouring the wife reason best known to him and can be understand that judges in every family matters only favours the female
Kindly guide the strategy and next what step should be taken because it is true that wife do not want to live in semi urban area with her husband after leaving the metro city where her lot of near and dear one resides.
