Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Liability Of Husband Remain Same To Pay Maintenance Even Voluntarily Leaves Job: MP HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal precedent, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has delivered a crucial judgment reaffirming a husband’s liability to provide maintenance for his wife and child, even if he has voluntarily left his job. The ruling came in response to a revision petition filed by Sandeep Kumrawat against an order by the Family Court that had rejected his application for reducing the maintenance amount awarded to his wife and child.

The dispute arose from a matrimonial disagreement, and the court’s decision underscores the principles of maintenance law, emphasizing the obligation of husbands to support their families. The judgment highlights that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are enacted to protect women and children, preventing them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

Sandeep Kumrawat contended that his wife, who is highly qualified, had suppressed her income, and he was willing to support her. However, the court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance as per her husband’s standard of living during their marriage, even if she possessed educational qualifications. The court discouraged a hyper-technical approach and stressed the importance of considering the wife’s means at the time of living with her husband.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if Sandeep Kumrawat had voluntarily left his job, he remained liable to provide maintenance for his wife and child. The judgment reinforces the principle that an able-bodied husband must demonstrate compelling reasons beyond his control to evade his legal obligation of maintaining his family.

The ruling also clarifies the scope of revisional power, asserting that the court should not interfere with maintenance orders unless they are manifestly perverse. In this case, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, which had reduced the maintenance amount based on proper appreciation of evidence.

This judgment serves as a significant legal benchmark, upholding the rights of women and children in maintenance disputes and reiterating the essential responsibility of husbands to provide financial support, irrespective of their employment status.

Date of Decision: 19 October, 2023

SANDEEP KUMRAWAT  VS SMT ANTIMA KUMRAWAT

Similar News