Bombay High Court Slams Family Court for Dismissing Wife’s Maintenance Claim Over Technicality: ‘Non-Disclosure Not Suppression, Rights Cannot Be Denied’

In a landmark ruling that underscores the spirit of social justice in matrimonial law, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) emphatically held that a wife's right to maintenance cannot be denied merely because she failed to produce an interim order of maintenance from another proceeding.

Justice Abhay J. Mantri set aside the Family Court’s order dated 27.09.2024 which had dismissed the wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing "suppression" of the fact that she was already receiving interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

“Non-production of an interim maintenance order is not suppression of fact in law. At best, it may attract costs — but never a denial of maintenance under beneficial legislation,” observed Justice Mantri.

The Family Court had refused to entertain the wife's maintenance plea, solely on the basis that she had failed to mention or produce the interim maintenance order passed under the DV Act. The High Court, however, took a pragmatic and legally sound view, stating that this approach was not only hyper-technical but also inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha.

“A wife is well within her legal rights to claim maintenance under different statutes such as the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, and Hindu Marriage Act. What’s required is disclosure and adjustment, not denial,” the Court emphasized, relying on paragraphs 56 and 98 of the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The husband, notably, did not enter the witness box, did not produce any evidence to prove that the wife was financially independent, and yet the Family Court concluded she was not entitled to maintenance — a conclusion that the High Court found deeply flawed.

“An able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of maintaining his wife. He cannot escape liability by alleging that the wife is qualified or capable of working, without offering proof of her income,” the Court ruled, citing the enduring precedent from Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan.

Significantly, the wife had disclosed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act were ongoing. She also admitted during cross-examination that she was receiving Rs. 2,500 per month as interim maintenance — later enhanced to Rs. 5,000 by the Sessions Court. Yet, the Family Court took the extreme step of dismissing her Section 125 petition entirely.

“When a woman files a claim under a social welfare statute like Section 125 CrPC, courts must lean towards justice, not technical rigidity. The dismissal of her claim without assessing her entitlement is a miscarriage of justice,” Justice Mantri declared.

The High Court concluded that while the wife may have failed to produce the DV Act interim order, this could at best invite costs or warnings, but cannot become the basis to deny her substantive rights.

The matter has now been remanded to the Family Court at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, with clear directions to reconsider the wife’s petition on merits, and to adjust the amount already awarded in DV proceedings. The Family Court has been directed to dispose of the matter on or before 30th April 2026, and both parties are to appear before the lower court on 1st January 2026.

This judgment not only reasserts the rights of women under beneficial statutes but also sends a strong message to trial courts: do not let procedural lapses override substantive justice.

As matrimonial litigation grows more complex, this ruling offers clear judicial guidance on the harmonious application of overlapping maintenance laws, the need for adjustment rather than rejection, and most importantly, the importance of empathy and legality in cases involving deserted or separated spouses.

The ruling reaffirms that technicalities cannot override human dignity and statutory protection, especially where a wife is left to survive on meagre sums while the husband's financial obligation is brushed aside on mere assumptions.

“Maintenance is not charity—it’s a legal right. Courts must uphold it with fairness, not defeat it with formalism,” the High Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 16/12/2025