Bombay HC freezes family properties of businessman who failed to pay maintenance to wife, daughter – Hindustan Times

Mumbai. The Bombay high court (HC) has restrained a Mumbai-based businessman and his parents from creating any third party rights in the movable or immovable properties held by them either independently or jointly after he had failed to clear his pending dues of interim maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.

Last Friday, a two-member division bench, comprising Justices Prasanna Varale and Milind Jadhav, also directed the owner of an elevator-manufacturing firm to submit an inventory of all the movable and immovable properties belonging to him and his parents.

The directives were issued following a petition filed by the estranged wife complaining about non-compliance of an order passed by a metropolitan magistrate court in Mumbai on June 30, 2018, directing the businessman to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs 75,000 and Rs 1.5 lakh to his minor daughter and the estranged wife, respectively.

The order was passed by the magistrate on a complaint lodged by the petitioner invoking provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005.

In the petition, filed through advocate DP Singh, the petitioner had complained that her husband had not complied with the magisterial order, and as of June, he had not paid arrears of over Rs 44 lakh.

Advocate Amogh Singh, the petitioner’s counsel, pointed out that on June 9 another division bench had also directed the Andheri-based businessman to clear the arrears by the next date, but he has not complied with the HC order.

The businessman responded to the petition and cited that he had paid Rs 15 lakh to his wife so far.

However, he expressed his inability to pay the balance amount on account of partial closure of business because of coronavirus disease (Covid-19)-induced lockdown restrictions.

He offered to deposit Rs 5 lakh in his estranged wife’s bank account in a week.

The offer, however, failed to impress upon the bench. It took note of the reference made by the petitioner to certain movable and immovable properties held by her husband and his parents in her application under provisions of the DV Act and issued the restraining order.

The HC has also observed that the non-compliance on part of the businessman may amount to a wilful breach of its order, inviting action for contempt of the court, and has kept the issue pending for future consideration.

The court will hear the case next after two weeks.