By – Yash Rawat
The petitioner-husband had filed a motion to set down an interim maintenance order, stating he had “no” income and relied on charity.
A Delhi court dismissed a man’s claim that he was unable to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife because he had no income, citing the fact that the company where he works as a Director has Indian cricket captain Virat Kohli as its brand ambassador, demonstrating that the petitioner-husband was a “man of means.”
Session Extensions Judge Anuj Agrawal was hearing an appeal from a man who was appealing a trial court order awarding his separated wife 30,000 in maintenance. He had appealed the ruling, arguing that he had “no” income and relied solely on charity.
The Court, on the other hand, found that was a director of a firm that manufactured a product that the cricketer endorsed
“This court can take judicial note of the fact that said brand’s brand ambassador is Virat Kohli, Team India’s Test cricket captain.” As a result, it appears exceedingly implausible that a corporation in such dire straits (as stated by the appellant) could afford a celebrity of such status to promote its goods,” the court said.
The product’s packaging had been placed on the record by the wife’s lawyer. As a result, the husband was deemed to be a “man of riches” with a significant business who appeared to be “impersonating himself as a pauper” in order to thwart the estranged wife’s “legitimate support claim.”
The woman had accused her spouse of domestic violence, alleging she had been living separately and had no means of support.
Aside from seeking interim maintenance, her lawsuit under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act sought a number of other reliefs. The trial court had ordered her to pay her monthly maintenance while estimating the man’s monthly income to be one lakh rupees.
Judge Agrawal considered the submissions of the contesting parties before deciding on the challenge.
The woman was not entitled to maintenance, according to the husband, because she was educated and had a substantial income from her business. On the other hand, the woman claimed that her estranged husband’s income was in the millions. She said he manipulated her to demonstrate he wasn’t making enough money.
The Court noted that in circumstances like this one, the parties have a tendency to conceal their true income.
“It appears that in the instant case also, appellant/husband withheld his true income from the court. It cannot be believed that a person who was capable of supporting a family by getting married, would all of a sudden become devoid of all sources of income,” the Court observed.
The order stated that once the husband’s monthly income was calculated at Rs. 1 lakh, the interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 could not be considered “unjustifiable or extravagant” by any stretch of the imagination.
About The Author
