The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Sandeep Malik vs. Renu and others observed that a person who is being able to pay a hefty loan amount can not deflect from his responsibility which being towards his legally wedded wife as well as the children.
The bench comprising of Justice Jagmohan Bansal in the case observed while upholding a family court order wherein the court directed one Sandeep Malik, a Lieutenant Colonel, who is working with the Indian Army to pay a total of Rs. 55,000/- to his wife and minor daughters as the maintenance.
The petitioner in the plea is able to pay hefty amount towards home loan and car loan, however, the petitioner is trying to deflect from his responsibility which being towards his legally wedded wife as well children. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deflect from his responsibility which not only being statutory but also social and moral.
It has also been added by the court that the person who is holding a very high position is more socially and morally responsible towards his family members.
In the said case, the bench was essentially dealing with a revision petition filed by one Malik against an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat allowed maintenance of Rs. 55,000/- per month to respondents i.e. Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and respondent No.3, who being the minor daughters of the petitioner.
However, the Malik, who in November 2011, got married to his wife (respondent No. 1), argued before the Court that his carry home salary being Rs. 66,000/- per month and an amount of Rs. 55,000/- per month cannot be paid by him to the respondent in the matter.
Adding to it, the court noted the gross salary of the petitioner is in fact Rs. 1.98 lahks, however, the petitioner is getting carry home salary Rs. 66,000/- as the petitioner is making payments towards the home loan and towards the car loan. Further, he also contributes towards the provident fund and other statutory deductions.
In the said view, it has also been noted by the court that despite being able to pay a hefty amount towards home loan and car loan, the petitioner was trying to deflect from his responsibility which being towards his legally wedded wife as well children.
The court observed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to deflect from his responsibility which being towards his wife and children, wherein the court upheld the order of the family court as the court found the findings to be fair.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed by the court.
