Omar Abdullah had claimed estranged wife Payal was cruel to him, refused to pay for monthly expenses: Read background as court orders Rs 1.5 lakh maintenance

On Thursday, August 31, the Delhi High Court ordered former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay Rs 1.5 lakh per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah as maintenance. The Court additionally asked him to pay Rs 60,000 per month for his son’s education.

This is after his estranged wife Payal Abdullah, who was Payal Nath before marrying Omar Abdullah, challenged the trial court’s order on April 26, 2018, which asked Omar to pay Rs 75,000 per month to Payal Abdullah and Rs 25,000 to their son till he becomes 18 in proceedings under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Payal stated that the maintenance granted was insufficient and that their sons were not old enough to take care of their own bills and must rely on their parents to fund their education and everyday living expenses.

Reportedly, Abdullah has filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court against this ruling. He contended that he has never shirked from the responsibility of his sons and has been paying for the maintenance of the children anyhow.

Omar Abdullah announced separation in 2011

The issue between Omar and Payal has been ongoing for several years now as the former claimed that their marriage had broken irretrievably and that the latter committed cruelty upon him. The saga began in September 2011 after the then Jammu and Kashmir CM Omar Abdullah announced his separation from Payal Abdullah, to whom he had got married in the year 1994.

Amid the announcement, speculations were rife that Omar was planning to remarry or that his closeness to a television anchor had led to problems in his relationship with Payal. Ruling out the rumours then, Abdullah had said that the speculation about motives and about his future course of action was unfounded and untrue and that they had caused hurt to all concerned with the decision. “The stories about my remarriage are completely false and concocted. It is a pity that while repeating these lies, no effort was made to ask me whether any of this is true,” he added.

Omar and Payal met when they were employed at The Oberoi Hotel in Delhi. Omar was a young marketing professional in the same hotel chain at that point in time. On September 1, 1994, they got married under the Special Marriage Act and welcomed two boys, Zahir and Zamir.

Payal is a Delhi native with family roots in Lahore, Pakistan. Her father, Major General Ram Nath, was an army officer.

Omar filed for divorce based on the grounds of cruelty in marriage

Almost a year after the announcement of separation, Omar Abdullah in the year 2012 filed for divorce from Payal Abdullah based on the ground of cruelty in marriage. However, the woman contested the divorce plea with her lawyer Amit Khemka claiming that cruelty in marriage was a baseless argument.

A trial court in 2016 dismissed Omar Abdullah’s divorce plea saying that he failed to prove “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” and his claims of “cruelty or desertion” by his estranged wife.

Eviction notice issued to Payal Abdullah

Later the Estate Officer of the Jammu and Kashmir government issued an eviction notice in June 2016 to Payal Abdullah asking her to vacate the sprawling bungalow on Akbar Road in Lutyens’ Delhi. The bungalow at 7, Akbar Road was first allotted to Omar Abdullah in 1999 by the Ministry of Urban Development when he was an MP from Jammu and Kashmir. He retained the house when he became the CM in 2009. But after his term as CM was over in 2005, he no longer had the right to stay in the house. But his wife, who had separated from him by that time, continued to live in the Lutyens bungalow and refused to vacate it.

Payal then approached a Delhi Court in July 2016 seeking a stay on the eviction notice. She contended that the said property was allotted to her husband by the central government and that the Estate Officer of the J&K government had no right to demand the eviction.

Payal’s lawyer Amit Khemka further said that if Payal and her sons are entitled to alternate government accommodation, the Centre shall not evict them until the same is provided to them. He also argued that the lady and both her sons had ‘Z’ category security and Z + security respectively and that it was impossible to accommodate around 100 security men deployed to guard the lady and her sons in a small apartment.

However, the trial court dismissed her appeal against the estate office of Jammu and Kashmir’s eviction order and ordered her to vacate the government house. After that, she challenged the verdict in the Delhi High Court. But she didn’t get any relief from the High Court also.

On August 17, 2016, the Delhi High Court ordered Payal Abdullah to vacate the Akbar Road bungalow. The court maintained that the said bungalow had been designated for the state Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister. “The entitlement of the petitioners (Payal and her sons) to retain this accommodation is wholly illegal. It is a government accommodation. Petitioners have no claim or right upon it,” Justice Indermeet Kaur said.

Payal had also contended that she might not get the same level of government protection in her small apartment in the city. However, the Center reported to the court that there was no imminent threat to her and that the protection was provided as a result of the general threat perceived by Kashmiri terrorists for being a member of the Abdullah family. The Centre also stated that the security threat was not as high in Delhi as in Jammu and Kashmir.

The estranged wife of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was evicted on August 23 that year. The Court also stated in the eviction order that government security would continue to be provided to Payal and her sons.

It is notable that during Payal’s court battle to retain the house, Omar Abdullah had said that he is no longer in occupation of the premises and the estate office is free to take whatever steps are considered necessary for taking the property over.

Court dismissed Omar Abdullah’s divorce petition, saying there was no evidence to prove that Payal had committed cruelty upon him

Meanwhile, the family court in Delhi on August 31, 2016, dismissed Omar Abdullah’s divorce petition, saying refusal to part ways does not amount to cruelty in marriage. The Court also stated that the politician failed to prove the ‘irretrievable breakdown of the marriage’. It also noted that there was not even a shred of evidence to prove that Payal had committed cruelty upon him.

“The petitioner (Omar) has not been able to explain a single circumstance to show that the supervening circumstances have erupted which has made it impossible for him to continue his relationship with the respondent (Payal). Rather, evidence shows that they were in continuous contact till the filing of the divorce petition…there is not an iota of evidence in regard to the circumstances which have prevailed to prompt the petitioner to file the divorce plea,” then Principal Judge Arun Kumar Arya was quoted as saying.

Payal demanded Rs 15 lakh monthly maintenance

Post eviction, Payal Abdullah moved a city court seeking maintenance of Rs 15 lakh per month from her husband arguing that she and her children had become homeless and penniless after eviction from the government residence. She filed a petition demanding Omar to pay Rs 10 lakh in maintenance to her and Rs 5 lakh per month to her sons. She also added that eviction had made them vulnerable to security threats.

The petition further stated that she had been forced to shuttle to space at the home of her friends or aged parents post-eviction and that she had suffered a lot of torture and harassment. Payal also said that Omar’s unreasonable withdrawal from matrimony on absolutely unjustifiable grounds had caused her immense distress.

Payal noted that she was never interested in separation and alleged that she and her sons had been neglected by Omar since the year 2013. “He refused to maintain us in any form despite having sufficient means to do so,” the woman said demanding compensation for tarnishing her image in the public.

Omar refused saying Payal earned a significant amount to lead a lavish life

The case continued as Omar Abdullah refused to pay his estranged wife maintenance saying that she earned a significant income to lead a lavish lifestyle and therefore was not entitled to any maintenance. “She (Payal) has greater means than respondent (Omar) which has been tried to conceal,” Omar’s counsel stated in the Court.

However, refuting the claims, Payal’s counsel Jayant K Sud stated that Payal was completely dependent upon her father. “The allegations of Omar that she is a director of three companies are also false because they are lying defunct and were actually started by him. Payal always contributed her best to uphold the institution of marriage and was never interested in separation. She was hoping that he would come back and perform the responsibilities of a father and husband,” the counsel was quoted as saying.

Trail Court awarded Rs 75,000 per month maintenance; Payal challenged

The trial court April 26, 2018, then awarded provisional maintenance of Rs 75,000 per month to Payal Abdullah and Rs 25,000 to their son till he turned 18 in proceedings under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Payal then challenged the order and stated that the maintenance granted was insufficient and that their sons were not old enough to take care of their own bills and must rely on their parents to fund their education and everyday living expenses.

Later in April 2020, the Court issued a circular demanding both parties in the case to agree to a final hearing in the case. Omar in November 2020 challenged the said circular claiming that his wife was not cooperating with the final hearing that had been pending from the year 2017. The Delhi Court dismissed the said plea and stated that lack of cooperation from his estranged wife was not a ground for challenging the High Court’s earlier order.

Due to the restricted functioning of the Court during the COVID-19 spread, the court issued a circular saying that the final hearing of pending matters would be entertained only if both parties agreed. But Omar alleged that the case was getting delayed due to a lack of cooperation from his estranged wife.

Court ordered Omar Abdullah to pay Rs 1.5 lakh monthly maintenance

The court eventually on August 31 this year directed the former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister to provide his estranged wife a monthly maintenance of Rs 1.5 lakh. Justice Subramonium Prasad additionally ordered Abdullah to pay 60,000 per month for his son’s education.

Notably, Abdullah has again filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court against this ruling.