In yet another twist to their controversial wedding build-up, Sania Mirza and Pakistan cricketer Shoaib Malik sought to reschedule their marriage to Friday evening but were forced to push it back to the original date of April 15 due to legal hassles.
The marriage, which was confirmed by the Quazi Azmatullah Jaffri of Dar-Ul-Qazzat earlier in the day, could not be performed as Shoaib reportedly could not submit necessary documents like passport and clearances with regard to closing of the criminal case filed against him.
The Hyderabad police took Shoaib’s passport after Ayesha Siddiqui, a Hyderabad girl whom he allegedly married in 2002, lodged an FIR against him for dumping her after the marriage.
Shoaib, being a foreign national, his passport was deposited in a local court as part of the police procedure.
A close relative of Sania said the marriage would be performed on the morning of April 15 and a grand reception is scheduled in the evening.
Sania’s aunt Hameeda Usman said, “There is no function today. It is scheduled to take place on April 15 according to the original plan.”
Quazi Jaffri earlier said that Friday, being an auspicious day, the nikah will be performed after Magrib prayers (evening prayers) on Friday.
When contacted, Narasimha Reddy, Additional Commissioner of Police told PTI that as far as police are concerned, the case is closed but Shoaib has to apply to the court to get back his passport.
A strong media contingent waited outside Sania’s house for most part of the day and new barricade were erected to keep the media at bay.
Close relatives of Sania kept visiting the family. Her father Imran emerged from the house but did not talk to the waiting media men.
Ever since they announced their wedding, the couple had been hounded by the media over Shoaib’s first marriage.
Ayesha had alleged that Shoaib married her over phone before dumping her without a divorce due to her weight problems.
Shoaib initially denied the allegations and claimed that Ayesha duped him into a phone marriage by sending photographs of a different woman. The all-rounder, however, finally agreed to divorce her after being pressurized by community leaders.
Ayesha had filed an FIR against Shoaib alleging fraud and criminal intimidation, which led to the cricketer’s passport being confiscated by the police.
The FIRs have been withdrawn after Shoaib agreed to divorce Ayesha.
Showing posts with label divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label divorce. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
‘Husband bound to provide maintenance regardless of income’
A husband has moral and legal duty to provide a decent maintenance amount to his estranged wife in consonance with her living standards irrespective of his income, a Delhi court has said.
“A married man is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his estranged wife whether he possesses any property or not or whether or not he has any income. The obligation to maintain her is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties,” Additional Sessions Judge Nivedita Anil Sharma said.
The court passed the order while declining the plea of a husband, Shalabh Srivastava, seeking alteration in the interim-maintenance amount fixed by a lower court on the ground that his income had substantially went down after he joined a new job.
It declined the husband’s plea saying that he had an earning potential of Rs 35,500 per month and if he has preferred to minimise his income and work at a lesser salary, then he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own conduct.
“The fact of taking up a job at a lesser salary clearly indicates that the revisionist (husband) is deliberately making a conscious effort to reduce and minimise his income. It is also not believable that any man would work at a lesser income than what he is getting already.”
“The averments of the appellant clearly show that a deliberate attempt has been made by him to lessen his income and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of this fact,” the court observed.
The court rejected the contention of husband that the earning potential of his estranged wife was far more than the amount she was getting as maintenance.
“There is nothing brought on the record prima facie by the husband to show that the earning potential of the respondent (wife) is more than Rs. 7,000 as observed by the trial court,” the court said.
It also turned down the plea that the wife was living separately due to her own conduct, saying that the fact was immaterial for the purpose of award of interim-maintenance.
“The dispute regarding conduct of the parties are immaterial... only the earnings, properties, assets as well as the earning potential of both the sides is to be taken into consideration,” it said.
Mr. Shalabh had appealed against the order of a trial court fixing Rs. 7,000 per month as the maintenance for his estranged wife Ritu.
While awarding the maintenance, the trial court had concluded that Mr. Shalabh’s income was around Rs. 35,500.
“A married man is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his estranged wife whether he possesses any property or not or whether or not he has any income. The obligation to maintain her is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties,” Additional Sessions Judge Nivedita Anil Sharma said.
The court passed the order while declining the plea of a husband, Shalabh Srivastava, seeking alteration in the interim-maintenance amount fixed by a lower court on the ground that his income had substantially went down after he joined a new job.
It declined the husband’s plea saying that he had an earning potential of Rs 35,500 per month and if he has preferred to minimise his income and work at a lesser salary, then he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own conduct.
“The fact of taking up a job at a lesser salary clearly indicates that the revisionist (husband) is deliberately making a conscious effort to reduce and minimise his income. It is also not believable that any man would work at a lesser income than what he is getting already.”
“The averments of the appellant clearly show that a deliberate attempt has been made by him to lessen his income and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of this fact,” the court observed.
The court rejected the contention of husband that the earning potential of his estranged wife was far more than the amount she was getting as maintenance.
“There is nothing brought on the record prima facie by the husband to show that the earning potential of the respondent (wife) is more than Rs. 7,000 as observed by the trial court,” the court said.
It also turned down the plea that the wife was living separately due to her own conduct, saying that the fact was immaterial for the purpose of award of interim-maintenance.
“The dispute regarding conduct of the parties are immaterial... only the earnings, properties, assets as well as the earning potential of both the sides is to be taken into consideration,” it said.
Mr. Shalabh had appealed against the order of a trial court fixing Rs. 7,000 per month as the maintenance for his estranged wife Ritu.
While awarding the maintenance, the trial court had concluded that Mr. Shalabh’s income was around Rs. 35,500.
