Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Husband’s Duty to Provide Maintenance Irrespective of Income: Allahabad High Court Upholds Maintenance Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reaffirms the responsibility of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of maintenance granted by the Family Court. The case, titled Kamal vs. State Of U.P, was presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.

The revisionist, Kamal, had contested the Family Court's decision which directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000 to his wife. The revisionist’s argument hinged on the claim that his wife was self-sufficient and living in adultery. However, the court found these claims unsubstantiated.

In her judgment, Hon’ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J., emphasized the husband’s duty to maintain his wife, stating, “For the sake of argument, if the court presumed that the revisionist has no income from his job or from rent of Maruti Van, even then the revisionist is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife.” This statement highlights the court’s stance on the fundamental responsibility of a husband towards his wife’s maintenance, irrespective of his income or her alleged earning capacity.

The court noted the lack of documentary evidence regarding the wife’s alleged income and the revisionist’s illness. It was also observed that the revisionist, being the only son, had agricultural income from land in his father’s name. Hon’ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J., pointed out, “It is also evident from the record that the revisionist is a healthy man and is capable of earning money and is liable to maintain his wife.”

Rejecting the claim of adultery due to a lack of evidence, the court upheld the Family Court’s order, deeming the amount of Rs. 2,000 per month as a ‘meager amount’ considering the liabilities and assets of the revisionist.

The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the revision petition and an upholding of the Family Court’s decision dated February 21, 2023. The court also ordered the trial court to take coercive action against the revisionist for the recovery of maintenance.

Date of Decision: 25.01.2024

Kamal VS State Of U.P 

 

Latest Legal News