Man fails to pay maintenance arrears, court junks bail plea

Panaji: A Panaji court has rejected the bail application of a man who is yet to pay arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs 3.7 lakh towards the upkeep of his two minor children in a domestic violence case.
He was sent to judicial custody on November 28 last year for failing to clear the arrears.
The court held that his application for bail deserves to be dismissed since he last paid an amount of only Rs 10,000 towards maintenance of the two minor children on March 18, 2021.
“…and today we are in January 2023 and from April 2021 till date, not even a single rupee has been paid by the respondent to the minor children,” the court held.
The court stated that he being an “able-bodied person” and the minor children being “unable to maintain themselves”, “it was bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the two minor children and it is unfortunate to see that the respondent is avoiding paying maintenance, leave aside the applicant. Such conduct deserves to be condemned where minors are made to stay on mercy of others,” stated Judicial Magistrate First Class, “B” Court, Panaji, Artikumari N Naik.
Considering the arrears is a “huge amount” of Rs 3.7 lakh, the court found it “quite surprising” that he had the “audacity” to file an application seeking bail “without showing any intention of clearing the arrears amount or even paying the present maintenance amount to the minor children”.
The court was told that he being a government servant working in the river navigation department since 2009 has deliberately stopped going to work immediately after the order was passed in order to avoid paying maintenance to his two minor children and took defence that he is not a government servant and is not also a driver on private buses.
The court was told that he hasn’t abided by the court order not even once by paying a monthly maintenance of Rs 6,500 to his two minor children.
The wife submitted to the court that she is undergoing a lot of mental stress and torture and is forced to beg and borrow money from others for daily needs and education of her two minor children. The lawyer representing the father contended that the maximum period of confinement is one month for such an offence.