Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Employment of Wife Does Not Disentitle Her to Maintenance: High Court of Bombay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has dismissed a criminal revision application challenging the Family Court’s order on maintenance. The application filed by Prakash Eknath Dheple sought the cancellation of maintenance awarded to his wife and son, while the respondents sought an enhancement. Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that mere employment of the wife does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance, especially in light of rising living costs.

Employment and Maintenance: The court delved into the complexities surrounding the employment of the respondent wife, Vithabai, who was found to be earning between Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month. Despite the husband’s claim that her employment nullified her need for maintenance, the court reiterated that a wife’s employment alone does not disentitle her from receiving maintenance. Justice Deshmukh noted, “The mere fact that the wife is employed does not eliminate her entitlement to maintenance, particularly when the initial amount was meager considering the current cost of living.”

Financial Needs and Educational Expenses: The court considered the financial requirements of Vithabai and her son, Kailas, who is a student. The enhancement of maintenance was justified by the increase in living costs and educational expenses. The Family Court had earlier enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 3,500 per month, considering these factors. “The increased cost of living and the educational needs of the son necessitate a fair enhancement of maintenance,” stated Justice Deshmukh.

In affirming the Family Court’s decision, the judgment underscored the principles of evaluating maintenance claims under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C. The court highlighted that the applicant’s inability to prove economic hardship was a significant factor. “The husband’s claim of being economically disadvantaged was not substantiated with credible evidence,” noted Justice Deshmukh.

Justice Deshmukh remarked, “Merely because the wife is earning does not exonerate the husband from his liability to pay maintenance. The initial maintenance amount was insufficient, and the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,500 per month is justified considering the current economic circumstances.”

The dismissal of the revision application by the High Court reinforces the judicial stance on maintaining fair maintenance orders considering all relevant factors, including living costs and financial needs of dependents. This judgment sends a strong message about the equitable distribution of maintenance responsibilities and supports the legal framework designed to ensure just outcomes in family law cases. The imposition of costs and interest on arrears also highlights the court’s commitment to expediting maintenance payments and preventing undue delays.

Date of Decision: 10th May 2024

Prakash vs. Vithabai

Similar News