Amardeep Singh Chadha vs Nirmeet Kaur @ Naina on 16 November, 2018

Introduction: In the case of Amardeep Singh Chadha versus Nirmeet Kaur, adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on November 16, 2018, the appellant challenged an order from the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The order, dated September 4, 2018, pertained to the respondent-wife’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son.

Amardeep Singh Chadha vs Nirmeet Kaur

Background: The appellant and respondent were married in February 2003, with a son born in December 2003. The parties had been living separately since January 2009, with the appellant filing a divorce petition in April 2014. The challenge arose from the Family Court’s decision granting maintenance to the respondent and her minor son.

Key Arguments: The appellant contended that the order was passed in his absence and without due consideration of his financial constraints. He argued that he was unemployed and reliant on his widowed mother, thus unable to fulfill the maintenance obligation.

Court’s Observations: The court examined the appellant’s financial status, noting discrepancies between his claims of unemployment and evidence suggesting concealed income. The court highlighted the challenges faced in assessing true income in maintenance proceedings, often necessitating conjecture.

Court’s Decision: After considering the evidence and legal precedents, the court upheld the Family Court’s decision, affirming the assessed income of the appellant at Rs. 25,000 per month. It dismissed the appeal, finding no merit, and clarified that the order wouldn’t hinder the appellant from raising other grounds in different proceedings.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the Delhi High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the respondent and her minor son. The decision underscored the duty of spouses to disclose accurate financial information and emphasized the court’s role in ensuring adequate support for dependents. The judgment provided clarity on maintenance proceedings while allowing the appellant avenues for further legal recourse.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *