MUMBAI: Noting that pets are necessary for human beings to lead a healthy life as they can fill the emotional deficit created by broken relationships, a magistrate court ordered a businessman to pay provisional monthly maintenance of 50,000 rupees to his estranged wife of 55 years. . Metropolitan Magistrate Komalsing Rajput refuted the husband’s argument that maintenance of the dogs cannot be considered.
Seeking temporary support after filing a domestic violence case against her husband of 34 years, the woman claimed she had no source of income, was sick and had three Rottweiler dogs that were dependent on her.
“The fact of the separation and the non-disposal of any means of survival of the plaintiff (woman) by the defendant (husband) is admitted. It is also admitted that the applicant… depends solely on the defendant. His age is also considerable and there are other factors such as the illness and the pets that he has, they are also generating financial responsibility for him, ”said the magistrate, who added that the defense offered by the husband could not exempt him from paying alimony . “These admitted facts clearly constitute economic violence,” said the magistrate.
The magistrate said no material was presented to infer that the husband suffered business losses. “Furthermore, even if she is presumed to have suffered such losses, this fact in itself is not enough to disclaim liability. The parties belonged to a good economic situation, they should be granted support for her and that too with a lifestyle and requirements that are suitable for her, ”said the magistrate.
The woman had moved court in 2021. She claimed she had two daughters with the man who were now married and living abroad. It was claimed that some differences arose between them in 2021 and he sent her to Mumbai from another city where they were residing. She said that the man had assured her maintenance and other basic necessities, but she did not keep his promise.
“During his married life, he provoked several acts of domestic violence…”, the woman’s lawyer told the court. The woman applied for interim maintenance of Rs 70,000.
The husband denied having caused any act of domestic violence and stated that the woman had left the house alone through no fault of his own. He also claimed that he had no means of income as claimed by the woman and that she had suffered losses in the business.
Seeking temporary support after filing a domestic violence case against her husband of 34 years, the woman claimed she had no source of income, was sick and had three Rottweiler dogs that were dependent on her.
“The fact of the separation and the non-disposal of any means of survival of the plaintiff (woman) by the defendant (husband) is admitted. It is also admitted that the applicant… depends solely on the defendant. His age is also considerable and there are other factors such as the illness and the pets that he has, they are also generating financial responsibility for him, ”said the magistrate, who added that the defense offered by the husband could not exempt him from paying alimony . “These admitted facts clearly constitute economic violence,” said the magistrate.
The magistrate said no material was presented to infer that the husband suffered business losses. “Furthermore, even if she is presumed to have suffered such losses, this fact in itself is not enough to disclaim liability. The parties belonged to a good economic situation, they should be granted support for her and that too with a lifestyle and requirements that are suitable for her, ”said the magistrate.
The woman had moved court in 2021. She claimed she had two daughters with the man who were now married and living abroad. It was claimed that some differences arose between them in 2021 and he sent her to Mumbai from another city where they were residing. She said that the man had assured her maintenance and other basic necessities, but she did not keep his promise.
“During his married life, he provoked several acts of domestic violence…”, the woman’s lawyer told the court. The woman applied for interim maintenance of Rs 70,000.
The husband denied having caused any act of domestic violence and stated that the woman had left the house alone through no fault of his own. He also claimed that he had no means of income as claimed by the woman and that she had suffered losses in the business.