Alimony is financial support that a person is ordered by the court to grant their spouse during separation or following divorce. In many cases in our country, husbands are asked to grant alimony to their wives after separation. This is because innumerable women sacrifice their careers in order to look after their families and are not financially independent.
However, in a case that was recently reported in Maharashtra, a woman was asked to pay alimony to her former husband. The order was passed by a local court in Nanded, reported NDTV.
The man and the woman in question were married in 1992. Later, the wife sought divorce citing “cruelty and desertion”. In 2015, a divorce was granted to the couple. However, in 2017, the man moved to court seeking alimony from his former wife.
According to India Today, he demanded “permanent alimony” of Rs 15,000 every month from the wife. The woman is a teacher and earns Rs 30,000 per month. He contended that he did not have any source of income while his ex-wife had a Master’s and a B.Ed degree and was employed.
He further alleged that he had supported his former wife in attaining the degree by taking care of the household and sacrificing his career. He went on to claim that he suffered from “harassment” and “humiliation” from the woman. He said that he was not just unemployed but also did not have any moveable or immovable property, while his ex-wife did.
The woman, on the other hand, denied these claims. She said that her ex-husband ran a grocery shop and rented out an autorickshaw and hence, was not dependent on her.
However, the lower court had ordered the woman to pay Rs 3,000 to the husband as maintenance. A similar order was passed in 2019, directing the headmaster of the school to “deduct Rs 5,000 from the monthly salary of woman and send the amount to the court as arrears after she refused to pay her husband”.
Both the orders were challenged by the woman and she moved to the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay HC, however, refused to intervene.
What are your views on this case? Share with us!