Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Man buys car, hc says pay more alimony

Man buys car, HC says pay more alimony

TNN Aug 10, 2011, 04.38am IST

 

AHMEDABAD: A division bench of the Gujarat high court turned down a man's plea to scale down the alimony to his estranged wife, after it learnt that the man had bought a luxury car.

 

Dharmesh Desai's wife Hetal had moved the family court in Surat seeking divorce in 2009 and sought maintenance. The court asked Desai to give her Rs 3,000 every month till the divorce was settled. Hetal found the amount meager and moved the high court.

 

The single-judge bench took up the case and increased the maintenance amount from Rs 3,000 to Rs 7,500. However, the high court took notice of the fact that the lower court did not ask Desai to pay a penny to couple's daughter, who was studying in Class XII. The high court on its own decided for fix the amount and accordingly asked Desai to pay Rs 10,000 every month towards the girl's education.

 

Desai, who owns two shops in Surat and is engaged in the business of home appliances, challenged this order of payment of Rs 17,500 every month before a division bench stating that this amount is too much for him. He argued that the high court awarded maintenance amount for the daughter, event though his wife did not seek it before the trial court.

 

During the proceeding, Desai proposed one time settlement at payment of Rs 8 lakh on condition that his wife would withdraw all cases and the divorce petition would be converted to the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The woman agreed, but in the next proceeding Desai's counsel told the court that she would not be withdrawing from the case because the man had gone back on his word.

 

Another lawyer appeared for Desai and argued that he did not have sufficient income to pay a huge amount to his separated wife and daughter. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the court's notice that Desai had just purchased a brand new car worth Rs 6 lakh. This led the division bench to dismiss his appeal with observation that if he could buy a car, he could pay for her minor daughter's education that is costly these days.

 



Learning

 6 Replies

Ranee....... (NA)     09 February 2013

ha ha...amazing! husband wife need to maintain same standard of living..it is established by court.

(Guest)

Should have used some common sense before buying that car, any new big item such as car, property, land, flat etc which will keep flasshing in the ex-wifes face, is bound to bring troubles They will keep begging and keep a hawks eye on every move of yours, unless until there is a peramanent settlement of alimony be it wife or the kids.

rajiv_lodha (zz)     09 February 2013

Its all state sponsered extortion. Men then start using various illegal means to occlude their real income. Black money starts accumulating. Courts indircetly telling men to take these means to avoid increased maint.

Joseph Wilfred (Voluntarily Retired from Indian Overseas Bank)     10 February 2013

FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE HUSBAND SHOULD LIVE IN A HUT AND IN POVERTY TILL THE DIVORCE CASE IS SETTLED . EVEN AFTER THAT HE MUST LIVE FOR SOME YEARS IN THE HUT ONLY TILL ALL THE APPEAL PERIOD IS OVER . ON SOME OCCASIONS EVEN THIS WILL NOT WORK OUT BECAUSE EVENTHOUGH THERE IS A LIMITATION PERIOD FOR EVERY APPEAL THE COURT HAD THE POWERS TO EXEMT THIS LIMITATION PERIOD BEYOND THAT DEPENDING ON THE MERITS OF EACH CASE . IN ONE SUCH CASE RELATING TO PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 1951 THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAD ORDERED THAT THE WOMAN'S SHARE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HER BECAUSE THE WOMAN HAD SAID THAT SHE WAS A MINOR IN 1951 AND HER MOTHER HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE . BUT I KNOW A TRUE CASE OF A PERSON WHO IS NOW AGED 67 YEARS AND HIS FATHERS PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF SEVERAL ACRES IN ANDHRA PRADESH BORDER WHICH WAS ONCE IN MADRAS PROVINCE UNDER BRITISH RULE WAS TAKEN BY THE PROVISION STORE OWNER FOR PROVISIONS GIVEN TO HIS FATHER'S FAMILY JUST FOR RUPEES ONE THOUSAND RUPEES .HE HAD FOUGHT THE CASE IN SEVERAL LOWER COURTS IN TAMIL NADU AND ANDHRA PRADESH AND HAD WON IN SOME CASES AND HAD LOST IN SOME .HE IS STILL HAVING ALL THE PAPERS BUT HE DID NOT HAVE MONEY TO FIGHT CASES IN THE HIGH COURTS AND THEN IN THE SUPREME COURT . I TOLD HIM ABOUT THIS JUDGEMENT BUT HE DID NOT HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY TO FIGHT OUT THE CASES . WHAT HE SAYS IS EVEN HE WINS THE CASE , HOW HE WILL GET BACK HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE SEVERAL HOUSES HAD COME UP IN HIS PROPERTY NOW . NOW HE IS SOME WHERE IN TAMIL NADU ONLY .- JOSEPH WILFRED - 10/02/2013 AT 22.46 HRS


(Guest)

Is wife has right on the husband's property, which is purchased by him 3 years before the marriage?

Joseph Wilfred (Voluntarily Retired from Indian Overseas Bank)     23 February 2013

Dear Querrist

                              YOUR CAR AND FLAT AND LAND NOT ONLY FLASSHES BEFORE YOUR EX-WIFE'S EYES BUT THEY ALSO FLASH BEFORE THE LAW AND MORE PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE PERSON WHO APPEARED FOR YOUR WIFE IN THE LOWER COURT AND ALSO ON THE JUDGES . THIS IS INDIAN LAW - JOSEPH WILFRED -23/02/2013 AT 00.43 HRS 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register