#News

Court Raps Man For Denying Monthly Maintenance To Wife But Affording Virat Kohli As Ambassador

Man Denies Monthly Maintenance To Wife
Delhi High Court snapped back at the director of a firm as he denied monthly maintenance to his wife while his firm was able to afford Virat Kohli as a brand ambassador. The man was trying to avoid paying monthly maintenance to his estranged wife but the court was aware that his earnings were not meagre.

The man had filed an appeal against the trial court’s order that had asked him to pay his estranged wife a sum of Rs. 30,000 as monthly maintenance. The wife had filed a case against him under   Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The wife had requested various reliefs along with interim maintenance and the trial court, after assuring that her husband’s income was one lakh rupees per month, accepted her plea.

Man Denies Monthly Maintenance To Wife

The man challenged the trial court’s decision saying that he had no income and his firm, in which he was on a post of a director, was at a loss. However, it was revealed the man’s firm on January had Indian cricketer Virat Kohli as their brand ambassador.

It is no news that Kohli charges a heavy amount of money for endorsements and if his firm can afford it. The court noted that it is not possible for the man’s company to be in loss. The Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal said, “This court can take judicial notice of the fact that the brand ambassador of said brand is Virat Kohli, the test cricket captain of Team India. Therefore, it looks highly improbable that a company which is running into great losses (as claimed by appellant), was in a position to afford a celebrity of such stature for advertisement of its product.”

The High Court noted that the man had income and resources but was playing as a ‘pauper’ to get away without paying the interim maintenance to his wife. The judge also said that there have been cases where people have hidden their real income. And it was hard to believe for the court that a man who was able to afford and provide for a family would suddenly be deprived of any income.


Suggested Readings: Supreme And High Court Statements That Sparked Debates In 2021