Pay the maintenance

So easy for the Judge to order, so terrible for the man to pay - But what to do - Its India & the laws are biased.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that Rs 4,000 as maintenance cannot be too much especially if the same is for the children.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Zuber Khan, upset by a family court order that asked him to pay Rs 2,000 per child as maintenance to his wife after they separated.

Zuber and Seema Khan got married in 1997. The couple had two children, but differences cropped up between the couple and they separated in 2005. Seema then moved the family court for her and the children's maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The family court declined maintenance to Seema, saying that she was a working woman and could fend for herself. Initially, the family court ordered Zuber to pay Rs 1,000 as maintenance per child but, after Seema's objection, enhanced it to Rs 2,000 per child.

The court in its order said that the responsibility of the children should be shouldered equally by both parents. The judge also said that the cost of living had increased and education of the children has to be kept in mind. Since the children were staying with their mother the court deemed it fit to enhance the amount.

Ashok Toraskar, who was representing Zuber, said the husband was in no position to give Rs 4,000 as maintenance as he was himself doing odd jobs to make both ends meet. “His monthly income is only Rs 5,000 and it is very difficult to give that much as maintenance,” said Toraskar.

Justice S C Dharmadhikari, however remarked that there was no reason to interfere with the lower court order as it was fair. “You think that Rs 4,000 is too much for maintenance. Anyway, this maintenance is not for the wife it is for the children. I see no reason why this should be reduced,” he said.

Zuber who was present in the court could not control himself. As soon as he heard the judge, he raised his hand and appealed to the court, “Sir, mere se nahi hoga. Meri tankhwah hi utni nahi hai. (Sir, I will not be able to do it, my income is not that much.)”

The court reprimanded him, saying he wasn't allowed to address the court directly.

It then dismissed the petition.