Maintenance not paid? Vacate mom’s home, Bombay HC tells son – Times of India

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed a man and his family to vacate his parents’ house in Lower Parel after taking serious view of his flouting an order to pay his 73-year-old mother maintenance every month.
Justice Sandeep Shinde, on Tuesday, “forthwith” vacated an October 6 interim stay on a direction in the March 8 order of a Dadar magistrate “to remove themselves from the house in the name of the husband of the applicant [mother] within a period of one month.”
In her application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the 73-year-old had said that her son and daughter-in-law were trying to evict her husband and her from the room in Lower Parel. She had sought maintenance saying she has no income and is suffering from ailments.
Metropolitan magistrate S V Pimple had directed the couple to pay jointly Rs 20,000 compensation for the mental agony caused to the mother and the son to pay her Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance. The couple was also prohibited from “causing violence” to the mother.
The son and his wife then moved the HC and urged it to quash the magistrate’s order claiming it was harsh.
On December 9, the mother was present in the HC and complained about the non-payment of maintenance. Her advocate, Ajay Jaiswal, said that the arrears of maintenance had touched around Rs 2.1 lakh, including the compensation awarded by the magistrate. The son’s advocate then sought time to verify whether the maintenance was paid.
On Tuesday, Justice Shinde refused to grant further adjournment. The son’s advocate said that his client cannot pay now as his wife is unwell. But Jaiswal argued that the harassment continues and the son has not paid a penny to the septuagenarian.
Justice Shinde questioned why the son had not paid till now and added that he should have given some money to his mother.
Justice Shinde pointed out that the HC’s October 6 order did not stay the direction to the son to pay Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance to his mother. “The fact remains that the petitioner has not paid maintenance to his mother. In consideration of this fact, in my view, the interim relief granted on October 6 needs to be vacated. Accordingly it is vacated forthwith,” he added.
Justice Shinde posted the matter for further consideration in February.