Back
Woman Owned 1.7 Crore Flat Yet Upholds Rs 1 Lakh Monthly Maintenance
The has held that a woman who was deceived into believing that her husband had a valid divorce is entitled to maintenance under (), even if she owns significant assets. Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed a against a order that granted ₹1 lakh per month to the wife and ₹1.5 lakh per month to her minor child, emphasizing that asset ownership does not equate to a regular income.
A Relationship Built on Deception
The woman met the man in while working as a model; he claimed to be a film producer and later an educational institution owner. Despite knowing he was married, she was convinced to enter a relationship after he showed her a divorce order. They underwent a temple marriage in , and a son was born in . However, the husband stopped visiting from , leaving her unable to maintain herself and the child.
Husband’s Stand: No Marriage, Wife Has Means
The husband denied the marriage and argued that the woman was not entitled to maintenance because she lacked the legal status of a wife. He also pointed to her purchase of a ₹1.70 crore flat and ownership of two luxury cars to argue she was not a destitute. He was willing to pay ₹25,000 monthly for the child but contested any claim by the woman.
Court: and Husband’s Burden
The court highlighted that the husband had not rebutted the woman's evidence that she was duped about his divorce. Relying on the ’s decision in , it held that a man cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing. The court clarified that is a , and is not required when is established.
“Therefore, this Court is of the view that the to establish the marriage in a claim under cannot be the same as that is required to prove the . Therefore, in a claim under is not essential and if it is shown that the relationship was continuous and for a sufficiently long time, the marriage can be presumed.”
Assets Do Not Prove Regular Income
The court acknowledged that the woman owned a high-value flat and cars, but noted that she had not worked regularly after childbirth. The husband failed to prove she had an independent source of income.
“Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the 1st respondent had established that she had no regular source of income, the maintenance quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- is reasonable and no interference is called for.”
Final Order
The High Court dismissed the revision, confirming the ’s order dated . The husband must pay ₹1 lakh monthly to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh monthly for the child. The court also observed that while the order contained a minor error of cutting and pasting from an , it did not affect the decision on merits.
