Delhi High Court Directs Omar Abdullah To Pay Maintenance Of ₹1.5 Lakhs Per Month To Estranged Wife Payal

Nupur Thapliyal

31 Aug 2023 1:31 PM GMT

  • Delhi High Court Directs Omar Abdullah To Pay Maintenance Of ₹1.5 Lakhs Per Month To Estranged Wife Payal

    The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah. Justice Subramonium Prasad increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018. The court did so in light of Omar Abdullah’s financial capacity...

    The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.

    Justice Subramonium Prasad increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018. 

    The court did so in light of Omar Abdullah’s financial capacity to provide a decent standard of living to Payal Abdullah and their two sons and the standard of living enjoyed by him previously.

    “Accordingly, this Court observes that there is limited merit in the instant petition and directs the interim maintenance amount to be increased from Rs. 75,000/- per month to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 from the date of the application,” the court ordered.

    Justice Prasad also directed Omar Abdullah to pay Rs. 60,000 per month to both sons for their education, even though they are majors and not entitled to any maintenance as per law.

    The court said that the period of compensation shall commence from the date when the children were enrolled in law college and shall subsist till their graduation.

    It also observed that Payal Abdullah had been saddled with the responsibility of paying the entire fee for education of both the children, however, it was Omar Abdullah’s duty to also contribute towards the same.

    “Therefore, even though the Petitioners in CRL.REV.P 604/2018 are not entitled to any maintenance as per the law, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent should compensate the Petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 605/2018 by sharing the burden of the amount spent by her towards the expenses and upkeep of the children,” the court said.

    It added: “This Court is pained to note that in such acrimonious proceedings, the parents tend to make their children their pawns, thereby side-lining their children’s happiness in order to vindicate themselves.”

    Justice Prasad was deciding the revision petitions filed by Payal Abdullah and the two sons challenging two orders passed by the family court in the maintenance petition.

    The family court had rejected the maintenance claim of both the sons and granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000 to only one of them, for a limited period of three months till he attained the age of majority. It also granted interim maintenance of Rs. 75,000 to Payal Abdullah.

    Noting that the maintenance petition was filed in 2016, the court directed the family court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 months.

    Justice Prasad observed that the receipt of maintenance is not exclusive to woman and children who are on the edge of destitution and potential vagrancy.

    The court said that there is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

    “Thus, in addition to the fact that if a wife is earning some income, it does not operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband, it is further settled law that applicants in a maintenance proceeding are entitled to the same standard of living as they would have enjoyed if the dispute had not occurred,” the court said.

    It added that Omar Abdullah is a “man of means” and has access to financial privilege that evades the common man.

    “While it is understandable that being a politician, revealing all information pertaining to financial assets might be dangerous, however, there is no iota of doubt that the Respondent does have the resources to provide for his wife and children,” the court said.

    Title: ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774

    Click Here To Read Order


    Next Story