A woman's plea for maintenance from her husband, a retired government employee, has been dismissed by a Delhi court as she failed to show that she was being neglected by him.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pawan Kumar Jain dismissed the woman's appeal against the order of a trial court, which too had denied her the alimony.
The ASJ said there was no doubt that the husband has "sufficient means" but the woman, who had married him three decades ago, cannot be granted maintenance unless she proves that he had refused to maintain her.
"No doubt from the deposition of respondent (man), it is clear that he has sufficient means as he is getting pension to the tune of Rs 17,000 per month besides getting some interest on his savings/deposits.
"But this is not sufficient to grant maintenance unless revisionist (woman) proves that the man had either neglected her in any manner or refused to maintain her, which she failed to prove," the court said.
The woman, a resident of East Delhi in plea had said she had married the man in February 1971 and they have four daughters.
The woman alleged that for the last many days, the man had turned her out of his house and was neglecting her. She said her husband was earlier giving her Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance but for the past three months, he has stopped giving her the money.
Saying she does not have any source of income, the woman also claimed that she was suffering from various ailments and was getting treatment at the RML Hospital here.
The man, on the other hand, denied that he was paying her any alimony or was neglecting her.
The man also alleged that his wife had "intentionally and wilfully deserted" him and occupied the flat in IP Extension here which he had purchased from his income.
He further said he had transferred the power of attorney of the house in his wife's name and she, in turn, had sold the flat to one of their daughters at a very cheap price, though he claimed that the value of the house was around Rs 40 lakh.
The court rejected the woman's submissions saying from her averments, it appeared that their differences were from last three months only and as they were married since 1971, "it means there was no difference between the parties during the last three decades of marriage."