Husband Did Not Deny His Earnings; Merely Stated That Wife Did Not File Any Proof Of Income: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Challenge Against Maintenance Order
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the challenge raised by a husband against arrears of maintenance claimed by the wife since the husband had not specifically denied his earnings and he had merely stated that the wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition.
The wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses from her husband who had filed for the dissolution of their marriage by grant of a decree of divorce.
The wife had also lodged an FIR against the husband for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The husband had filed a counter denying all the allegations and argued that the application was not maintainable contending that the wife had refused to lead a marital life with him. The husband also claimed that the father of the wife was a police constable under whose influence the wife had foisted three criminal cases against the husband and his parents.
The trial court had directed the husband to pay the pendente lite maintenance and arrears of maintenance.
A Single Bench of Justice B.S. Bhanumathi observed, “The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.”
M/S Indus Law Firm represented the petitioner, while Advocate N Sai Phanindra Kumar appeared for the respondent.
The Court stated that the husband had not raised any objection against the interim order passed by the trial court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement.
The Court further explained that the husband in his counter did not deny his earnings and he merely stated that the wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition.
Therefore, the Court held that the trial Court had rightly taken the earning capacity into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance. The Court explained that the husband in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition.
The Court remarked, “Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended. ”
The Court held that “there is no impunity in the order challenged in this revision petition”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Anupati Rajesh v. Peruboina Anusha Sai
Appearance:
Petitioner: M/S Indus Law Firm
Respondent: Advocate N Sai Phanindra Kumar
