HC rejects Om Puri's petition challenging maintenance to wife
The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition filed by actor Om Puri challenging a family court order asking him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 2.90 lakh to his wife Nandita and minor son
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition filed by actor Om Puri challenging a family court order asking him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 2.90 lakh to his wife Nandita and minor son.
The family court has asked the actor to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs 1.25 lakh to his wife and Rs 50,000 to his child. In addition, the court had asked him to pay Rs 1.15 lakh per month towards medical and education expenses of his son which he had voluntarily agreed to give.
Puri contended that the family court order was not fair as the maintenance ordered to be paid did not commensurate with his income. Justice M S Sonak, hearing Puri's petition yesterday, disagreed with the actor saying the family court order was reasonable and had been passed while taking into consideration all the aspects, including monthly income of the petitioner.
The court referred to Puri's income tax returns for the relevant period 2009 to 2012, which stated annual income in the range of Rs 1.53 crore to Rs 3.34 crore. The High Court refused to interfere with the family court's order saying the maintenance amount awarded to his wife and son was not disproportionate to the actor's income.
Both the family court and the High Court had observed that the maintenance to Puri's wife and son was granted on the basis of financial status of the parties involved. The family court had held that while the wife had no sufficient source of income, Puri had a sound financial background.
Puri had filed a divorce petition in 2012 while his estranged wife had filed an application for interim maintenance. Nandita said she is a housewife and has no source of income. She further claimed the actor earned around Rs 35 lakh to Rs 45 lakh a month.
Puri countered the claims and alleged that the petition was filed with the motive of usurping his properties and harassing him. He also said he was a responsible and dutiful father and husband and took care of all the educational expenses of his child.