Mumbai judge orders abusive hubby to pay ex-wife Rs 4,000 alimony per month

May 26, 2013, 05:02 IST | Samarth Moray

Judge at the Bandra Family Court grants divorce to woman who was regularly beaten up by her husband; orders absentee husband to cough up alimony

An Andheri-based woman has been granted divorce from her husband after the latter allegedly beat her repeatedly. He was also a regular patron of various dance bars. The husband failed to appear before the court despite a summon. He has now been ordered to fork out Rs 4,000 a month to his divorced wife.

Monisha Verma (30) married Ramesh Verma (45) on May 9, 1997 at a Shiv Mandir in Mira Road. Initially, Ramesh, a contractor by profession, treated his wife quite well. But cracks soon began to develop in their relationship.

As the couple lived in a joint family with Ramesh’s parents, Monisha was made to do rigorous household chores. Allegedly due to pressure from his family members, Ramesh began demanding Rs 2 lakh from her parents. Monisha tried to convince her husband that her parents were in no financial condition to be able to satisfy his demands, but to no avail.

Judge SD Tulankar recorded in her judgment, “The respondent [husband] was a regular visitor of beer bars and permit rooms, and had illicit relations with bar girls. When the petitioner objected to this act of the respondent, he assaulted her with fist kicks and a belt mercilessly.”

Owing to the ill treatment, Monisha began losing weight rapidly and her health deteriorated. On March 18, 2009, Ramesh allegedly assaulted her so viciously that she had no alternative but to return to her parents, where she has stayed ever since. She approached the Bandra Family Court seeking a divorce on July 27, 2010.

The court, granting her a divorce on May 7, observed, “The respondent did not appear before the court and he did not adduce evidence in rebuttal. He also did not cross-examine the petitioner. As a result, the version of the petitioner [Monisha] remains unchallenged and unshaken. Therefore I have no hesitation to accept the version of the petitioner with regard to the cruelty [she has faced].”

(Names of the litigants have been changed to protect identities)

Go to top