Pune: In a recent divorce case where the husband sought separation due to continuous arguments over trivial matters, the court has provided some relief to the husband.
Taking into account the financial status of both parties and evidence of the wife's alleged extramarital affairs, the court ruled that it is not the husband's moral responsibility to support his wife financially. Consequently, the court denied alimony to the wife and approved child support only for the daughter.
Judge Raghuvendra Aradhye of the Family Court issued the ruling, stating that the husband must pay ₹5,000 per month in child support until the petition is resolved.
Suresh and Surekha (names changed) were married on December 29, 1996, and have two children, a son and a daughter. Shortly after the marriage, they began having frequent arguments.
Tired of the constant disputes, Suresh filed for divorce through Advocate Gauri Deshpande in the Family Court. In response, Surekha filed a claim seeking ₹50,000 in alimony.
During the case, both parties submitted information and documents regarding their income. After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the court observed, “The income tax returns filed in this claim are sufficient to show the financial capability of both parties.
Considering the conversations and photographs involving Surekha and a third party, it would not be appropriate to draw any conclusions at this stage. However, in my opinion, they are certainly objectionable. Taking all these factors into account, the husband's moral responsibility to support the wife does not exist."
The court noted that if the wife is involved in extramarital affairs, her moral or financial responsibility does not lie with the husband. Additionally, as the wife is employed, her claim for alimony was dismissed by the court.
However, the court emphasized that despite the wife's employment, the financial responsibility for the daughter also lies with the educated father, ordering the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month in child support.
“This ruling will be significant in cases where claims are filed merely to harass the husband,” stated Advocate Gauri Deshpande, representing Suresh.
