DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

89-yr-old man told to deposit Rs 6.50 L maintenance arrears

A local court has directed an 89-year-old husband and his younger son to deposit Rs 6.50 lakh maintenance amount arrears in the court, which are due from the date of filing of the application by his 85-year-old wife. The court...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Photo for representational purpose only. File photo
Advertisement

A local court has directed an 89-year-old husband and his younger son to deposit Rs 6.50 lakh maintenance amount arrears in the court, which are due from the date of filing of the application by his 85-year-old wife. The court had issued a show-cause notice to him for not paying interim maintenance

Advertisement

It had passed the order to deposit the amount after the advocate of the husband raised a question over the existence of the special power of attorney allegedly executed by his wife in favour of the elder son. The counsel argued that the authenticity of the special power of attorney is yet to be decided by the court.

The counsel of the husband also denied the allegations that his client had got the bank account closed to avoid its attachment as ordered by the court.

Advertisement

The woman, on the other hand, alleged that despite the order, her husband and her son had prematurely withdrawn the fixed deposits from the bank the very next day of the court order on attachment. The husband in a reply to the notice said that if the court order was disregarded, the responsibility for such non-compliance lies with the bank manager and not him.

He further claimed that he had received phishing calls regarding the balance in his bank account in Panchkula. Concerned about his account security, he, accompanied by his younger son, visited the bank on October 29, 2024, to close the account. They also reported the matter to the police. He said that he paid the special power of attorney holder Rs 13 lakh on the pretext of maintenance of the petitioner.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper