New Delhi, Oct 2 (PTI) A Delhi court has refused to set aside Rs 4,000 maintenance awarded to a woman from her estranged husband in a domestic violence case, saying it was not harsh considering the cost of living in the city.Also Read - Russian President Vladimir Putin to Visit New Delhi on December 6 For 21st India-Russia Annual Summit

The court pronounced the order while dismissing the plea of a man against a magisterial court verdict directing him to pay the amount to his wife as monthly maintenance. Also Read - Bank Holiday Alert: Banks To Remain Shut For 6 Days From Today | Complete List Here

“Keeping in view the cost of living index in metropolitan cities like Delhi, Rs 4000 per month awarded to the respondent (wife) by the Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be held to be unjust or harsh,” Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said. Also Read - IRCTC Latest News: Ranchi Rajdhani Route Changed From Tomorrow | Check Stoppage, and Other Details

The court also rejected his claim of having no income and that his parents and minor daughter were dependent on him.

“I find it to be a very funny ground that despite claiming to be having no income, the appellant(husband) is claiming his parents and his minor daughter being dependent upon him. Once a person has no income, how can others be considered dependent on him, is a hard fact to digest.

“It is settled preposition of law and is recognised by the superior courts, time and again, that an able-bodied man is presumed to be capable of maintaining his wife and other family members as per the status enjoyed by him in the society,” the judge said.

The court, however, set aside the monthly maintenance in favour of their minor daughter considering that she was already living with her father.

A magisterial court had on March 4, 2016 ordered the man to pay Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife who had lodged a domestic violence complaint against him allegeging she was thrown out of her matrimonial home for insufficient dowry.

The man, in his appeal, had contended that the magisterial court had wrongly assessed his income as Rs 20,000 while deciding the maintenance amount. He had further claimed that his wife was a graduate and was running a beauty parlour.

This is published unedited from the PTI feed.