Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Man To Provide Rice, Ghee & Clothes To Wife As Maintenance

Update: 2019-07-18 11:40 GMT
story

What could be termed as an interesting development as far as maintenance law goes, Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Amit Mehra v. Manju allowed an unemployed husband (who had lost his job) to provide basic necessities like Rice, Ghee & wearing suits to his wife in maintenance. Amit, resident of Punjab, had told the high court that he can't provide monetary sum to his...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

What could be termed as an interesting development as far as maintenance law goes, Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Amit Mehra v. Manju allowed an unemployed husband (who had lost his job) to provide basic necessities like Rice, Ghee & wearing suits to his wife in maintenance.

Amit, resident of Punjab, had told the high court that he can't provide monetary sum to his estranged wife and would make do with monthly ration. His lawyer informed the court about his unemployment and submitted before Justice RS Attri that his client was willing to fulfill his wife's daily necessities instead of giving her monetary sum as maintenance.

Counsel submitted before the court that petitioner was ready to provide 20kg rice, 5kg sugar, 5kg different pulses, 15kg wheat and 5kg pure ghee per month; three wearing suits quarterly and two litre milk every day to the respondent.

Justice Attri passing the order directed the husband to provide all these items within three days to the estranged wife. He further directed the petitioner Amit to clear the arrears of maintenance and to submit the affidavit in this regard on or before the date fixed for same. Petitioner was also directed to present himself before the court on the date fixed.

Court has fixed 25th July, 2019 as date of hearing for arguments in the case.

Petitioner was represented by advocate Amardeep Sheoran and respondent by advocate Sunny Namdev in the case.  



 


Tags:    

Similar News