A Sessions court has dismissed an appeal by a man against a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) court order directing him to grant ₹7,500 per month for maintenance to his estranged wife under the Domestic Violence Act, saying that it is devoid of merit.
The husband of the woman had challenged the subordinate court order on the ground that he was not heard out as the summons was not served upon him.
He also urged the court to condone the delay of six months’ in filing the appeal against the MM order.
The MM court had allowed the woman’s petition for compensation, saying that the summons deemed to have been served upon the husband.
According to the woman, she had married the appellant in May 2010, and in 2013 they were blessed with a son.
The woman alleged that after a couple of months of the marriage, her husband started beating and harassing her, yet she continued with hoping for a change in his behaviour.
Transferred property
The woman further alleged that her husband had also fraudulently transferred his house in the names of his two brothers with the sole intention to debar her from it.
She also submitted before the court that she was not able to maintain herself and her minor son. The mother-son duo was staying at the matrimonial home at that time.
Dismissing the appeal, Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra said, “The trial court passed the impugned judgment on the basis of affidavit of complainant and considering the cost of living and expenses of minor child, and directed the appellant to pay a sum of ₹7,500 (inclusive of ₹3,000 per month towards the minor child Deepanshu) to the complainant wife, which are not on higher side even if we consider the minimum wages of a matriculate.”
Mr. Malhotra also dismissed the grounds for challenging the MM court order.
“Perusal of the trial court record further goes to show that during proceedings, an application for obtaining water connection was filed on behalf of complainant/respondent wife, notice of which was also issued to appellant and thereafter on 11.08.2015, his counsel... appeared on his behalf. A reply to the said application dated 22.09.2015 on behalf of appellant was also filed before the trial court. Thus, appellant cannot take the plea that even on 11.08.2015 he was not aware about the proceedings. The impugned ex-parte judgment was passed on 30.04.2016 and till that date, no application for setting aside ex-parte order was moved or no efforts to join the proceedings were made by the appellant,’’ the judge said.
‘Devoid of merit’
“In the absence of any ground for condoning the delay of about six months in filing the present appeal, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay cannot be allowed and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed being devoid of any merit,” the judge further said dismissing the appeal.
