The Delhi high court on Tuesday rejected former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah’s plea seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
The court was of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the family court and the allegations of cruelty that were levelled were vague.
No infirmity in the order of the family court. Allegations of cruelty were vague. We find no merit in the appeal & the appeal is dismissed,” a bench of justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and justice Vikas Mahajan.
Abdullah has sought divorce from estranged wife Payal Abdullah on the grounds that he was subjected to cruelty by her.
On August 30, 2016, the trial court had dismissed Abdullah’s plea seeking divorce.
The trial court had said Abdullah could not prove his claims of “cruelty” or “desertion” which were the grounds alleged by him for the granting of a decree of divorce.
Earlier, the Delhi high court had directed the National Conference leader to pay ₹1.5 lakh to Payal every month as interim maintenance. It also directed him to pay ₹60,000 each for the education of his two sons every month.
The court’s order came on petitions by Payal and the couple’s sons against 2018 lower court orders granting them interim maintenance of ₹75,000 and ₹25,000, respectively, till the boys attained the age of majority.
Omar Abdullah had submitted before the high court that he was discharging his duty of maintaining the children and his wife was consistently misrepresenting her actual financial position.
The court, in its order, had observed that attainment of majority by a son should not absolve a father of his responsibilities of maintaining his children and ensuring their proper education, and that the mother cannot be the only one bearing the burden of expenses for raising and educating them.
The court clarified the period of compensation shall commence from the date when the children were enrolled in their law college, and shall subsist till their graduation from there.
“This court is pained to note that in such acrimonious proceedings, the parents tend to make their children their pawns, sidelining their happiness in order to vindicate themselves,” remarked Justice Prasad.
The court, however, rejected Payal Abdullah’s request to increase, at this stage, the maintenance amount for the purpose of payment of rent of her present dwelling.
“The learned Family Court has rightly observed in the impugned order that the property owned by the wife, which is located at Westend, New Delhi, is lying vacant. It is not only at the disposal of Payal Abdullah for her to take up residence there, but is also available to her for fetching rent out of it,” the court said.
Noting that the maintenance plea by the petitioners was filed in the year 2016, the court asked the family court to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 months.
