New Delhi: A Delhi court has asked a television serial director and production house owner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.33,000 to his estranged wife.
Metropolitan Magistrate Vandana in a recently delivered order asked Khurshid Alam, who directed the teleserial “Mehmood Ghaznavi” telecast by Doordarshan, Srinagar, to pay a monthly maintenance to his wife.
The court turned down Alam’s plea that he could not be tried in a court here as he was a native of Jammu and Kashmir. The court found that Alam had a property in Malviya Nagar in south Delhi.
Alam’s wife alleged that he denied her maintenance claiming that he had divorced her under the Muslim personal law, and under that law she was not entitled to any alimony.
Alam told the court that he had no source of income since June 2003 as he was unable to work due to various ailments.
He contended that he was a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir and the court in delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
His wife told the court that Alam was the owner of production house Tehura Films and a producer on the panel of Doordarshan in Delhi and Srinagar. She said that Alam earned around Rs.80,000 per month.
She also alleged he owned various properties in Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir and traded in Kashmiri shawls, earning Rs.2 lakh per month from them.
The court, while awarding a monthly maintenance to the woman, observed that Alam had said that he divorced her June 2008 but she denied the factum of pronouncement of divorce.
“As the factum of pronouncing talak by the respondent is denied by the complainant which is a matter of trial, even otherwise, it is settled by the Supreme Court that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband after the expiry of the period of iddat also as long as she does not re-marry,” the court ruled.
The court found that Alam was suffering from various ailments and consulting a private doctor. The court said that the prescription slip of his treatment indicated his sound financial state.
“It is difficult to understand as to from where the respondent has collected so much of funds so as to get such an expensive treatment and that too from a private centre and such a reputed doctor,” the court said.