New Delhi:
A Delhi Sessions court has dismissed a man's plea against a trial court order directing attachment of his salary for his failure to pay maintenance to his wife. "I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order," Additional Sessions Judge Surinder Kumar Sharma said while upholding a magisterial court's order for attaching Ghazibad resident Vinay Kumar's salary.
The magisterial court in November 2010 had ordered attachment of Kumar's salary for his failure to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 2,000 to his wife Madhu Bala, residing in north east Delhi. It had ordered Kumar earlier in September 2009 to pay maintenance to his wife on a plea by her under section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Kumar got married to Madhu in 2004 as per Hindu rites.
But soon they began living separately and Madhu moved the court for maintenance. The court in September 2009 had directed Kumar to pay her an interim maintenance of Rs 2000 per month. Since no maintenance was paid to her, Madhu moved court for execution of its earlier order for maintenance. This resulted in the magisterial court attaching Kumar's salary on November 3, 2010.
In his appeal challenging the magisterial court's order, Kumar had submitted to the Sessions court that he had sent some money orders which were returned back with the postal note that Madhu was not present at the given address.
Dismissing Kumar's petition, the Sessions court noted that the records placed before it showed that neither did Kumar appear in magisterial court nor did he make any payment. "As regard Kumar's contention that he sent several money orders but the same were returned back with the reports that the Madhu was not present, then under such circumstances, he should have paid the money to his wife in the court. But he did not do so nor he appeared in the court," the ASJ said
The magisterial court in November 2010 had ordered attachment of Kumar's salary for his failure to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 2,000 to his wife Madhu Bala, residing in north east Delhi. It had ordered Kumar earlier in September 2009 to pay maintenance to his wife on a plea by her under section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Kumar got married to Madhu in 2004 as per Hindu rites.
But soon they began living separately and Madhu moved the court for maintenance. The court in September 2009 had directed Kumar to pay her an interim maintenance of Rs 2000 per month. Since no maintenance was paid to her, Madhu moved court for execution of its earlier order for maintenance. This resulted in the magisterial court attaching Kumar's salary on November 3, 2010.
In his appeal challenging the magisterial court's order, Kumar had submitted to the Sessions court that he had sent some money orders which were returned back with the postal note that Madhu was not present at the given address.
Dismissing Kumar's petition, the Sessions court noted that the records placed before it showed that neither did Kumar appear in magisterial court nor did he make any payment. "As regard Kumar's contention that he sent several money orders but the same were returned back with the reports that the Madhu was not present, then under such circumstances, he should have paid the money to his wife in the court. But he did not do so nor he appeared in the court," the ASJ said
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
