High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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