Has Financial Privilege That Evades Common Man: Delhi HC Directs Former J&K CM Omar Abdullah To Pay ₹1.5 Lakh Monthly Maintenance To Wife
The Delhi High Court has directed the former Chief Minister of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah. It said that he is a man of means and has an access to financial privilege that evades the common man.
The Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month which was earlier granted by the Family Court to the petitioners. A batch of petitions was filed by Payal Abdullah and her two sons.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “In the instant case, a bare perusal of the record indicates that the Respondent is a man of means, and has access to financial privilege that evades the common man. While it is understandable that being a politician, revealing all information pertaining to financial assets might be dangerous, however, there is no iota of doubt that the Respondent does have the resources to provide for his wife and children.”
The Bench said that even if the wife has sufficient financial means to sustain herself, the husband cannot wash his hands off the responsibilities that are bestowed upon him when it comes to the upbringing of his children.
“This Court is of the view that in light of the financial capacity of the Respondent to provide a decent standard of living to his wife and children commensurate with his income and the standard of living that the Petitioners enjoyed previously, there is no reason that the maintenance amount awarded to Payal Abdullah should not be enhanced to that extent. Accordingly, this Court observes that there is limited merit in the instant petition and directs the interim maintenance amount to be increased from Rs. 75,000/- per month to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 from the date of the application”, directed the Court.
Advocate Prosenjeet Banerjee appeared for the petitioners (Payal Abdullah and sons) while Advocate Malvika Rajkotia appeared for the respondent (Omar Abdullah).
Brief Facts -
The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in 1994 under civil law in England and two sons were born to the couple. The respondent was the son of Farooq Abdullah and grand-son of Sheikh Abdullah who were well-known politicians and Chief Ministers of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir during their point of time. The respondent had abandoned the petitioners since 2013 and filed for dissolution of marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act read with Sections 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the application of the respondent and hence an appeal against the same was filed by him before the High Court.
It was alleged that the respondent thereafter physically threw the petitioners out of their house without any prior notice in 2016 due to which they were rendered homeless and were forced to take refuge at various places before finding a rented accommodation in Delhi. He refused to maintain the petitioners despite having sufficient financial means and was living in luxury plot in New Delhi. His wife was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.PC. and the Family Court granted Rs. 75,000/- interim maintenance to her and Rs. 25,000/- to one of his sons. Being aggrieved by this, she approached the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the parties noted, “This Court finds weight in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the language of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not meant to oust the duty of the father to provide for his son. Keeping in mind the purpose and intent of the provision in question, along with the growing importance of obtaining higher undergraduate education for the purpose of securing employment, the father is legally and morally bound to ensure that his children, even if it is a major son. The Court also is inclined to agree with the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the wife and the children must not be put in a position where they are deprived of the lifestyle and the comfort that they previously enjoyed.”
The Court further took note of the fact that the Income Affidavits of the husband and the wife indicates that Omar leads a lavish lifestyle and has been travelling to Dubai and London, living in five-star and seven-star hotels and spending lakhs on such luxuries.
“He evidently has the financial means to provide support to his wife and children. Additionally, the wife, on the other hand is the Director of three loss making companies. She has also studied only till 12th standard and her father is a retired Army General. However, it must also be noted that, though unemployed, the wife is also not a complete destitute”, said the Court.
The Court observed that both the sons of the couple are majors and, therefore, are not entitled to maintenance, however, the respondent cannot abandon his children and ought not to abdicate his duties as a father.
“The Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 has been saddled with the responsibility of paying the entire fee for the education of both the children, however, it was the duty of the father to also contribute towards their education. Therefore, even though the Petitioners in CRL.REV.P 604/2018 are not entitled to any maintenance as per the law, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent should compensate the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 by sharing the burden of the amount spent by her towards the expenses and upkeep of the children”, ordered the Court.
The Court, therefore, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- per month for each son to his wife for the period that they were enrolled in law school. The Court was pained to note that in such acrimonious proceedings, the parents tend to make their children their pawns, thereby side-lining their children’s happiness in order to vindicate themselves.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petitions and directed the Family Court to dispose of the 2016 maintenance plea as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 months.
Cause Title- Zahir Abdullah & Anr. v. Omar Abdullah (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6254)
