Divorce Ruling: Pune Court Orders Husband to Support Daughter, Denies Wife’s Alimony Claim
Pune, 8th July 2024: Amid constant marital discord, a husband sought divorce from his wife in the Pune Court, where he received a surprising ruling in his favor. Taking into account the financial statuses of both parties and evidence of the wife’s extramarital affair, the court denied alimony to the wife, asserting that it is not the husband’s moral responsibility to maintain her. However, alimony was granted to their daughter.
Family Court Judge Raghvendra Aradhye delivered this verdict. The order stipulates that from the filing of the suit until the decision of the petition, the daughter should receive Rs 5,000 in alimony per month.
Suresh and Surekha (names changed) married on 29th December 1996 and have two children, a son and a daughter. Shortly after their marriage, small quarrels began. Tired of the constant fights, Suresh applied for divorce in the family court through Advocate Gauri Deshpande. Subsequently, Surekha filed a claim for Rs 50,000 in alimony from her husband.
Both parties submitted income information and documents to support their claims. Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court stated, “The income tax returns filed in the suit adequately demonstrate the financial capabilities of both parties. While Surekha’s conversations with a third person and the photos she sent are concerning, it is not appropriate to draw definitive conclusions at this time. However, in our opinion, it is offensive. Taking all these factors into account, caring for the wife is not the husband’s moral responsibility.”
Advocate Gauri Deshpande, representing Suresh, commented, “If the wife has an extramarital affair, her moral or financial responsibility does not lie with the husband. The court rejected her alimony application since she is also an earner. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that the financial responsibility for the daughter falls on the highly educated father, ordering the husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month for her maintenance. Such judgments are significant in cases filed solely for the harassment of the husband.”
