MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Right to Just Maintenance: Just and Reasonable Amount of Maintenance Cannot Be Denied on Mere Technicalities: MP High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta, upheld the trial court’s decision granting maintenance to a wife and her minor son, setting a precedent on the interpretation of maintenance laws in India.

The case, involving Smt. Deepa and her son Rohit against her husband Harish, centered around the maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, had earlier ruled in favor of the wife and son, awarding them monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 4,000, respectively.

Justice Gupta, in his judgment, emphasized the court’s duty in awarding just and reasonable maintenance. He stated, “The amount of maintenance should be such that a wife is able to maintain herself decently and with dignity. If after considering the material placed before the Court, the Court thinks that a particular amount is a reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application.” This observation addresses a critical aspect of maintenance laws, highlighting that the court’s discretion in determining the maintenance amount is paramount and should not be limited by technicalities.

The High Court’s judgment also clarified the application of the principle of Res Judicata in maintenance cases. The court noted that the principle would not apply if the previous application was not decided on its merits.

This ruling is seen as a landmark in reinforcing the legal rights of women and children to adequate maintenance. The case references several other notable judgments, including Shamima Farroqui V Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705], underlining the evolving jurisprudence around maintenance in Indian law.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair and adequate maintenance, respecting the dignity and needs of dependents in matrimonial disputes. The judgment has been welcomed by various sections of society, highlighting its significance in the ongoing discourse on family law and women’s rights in India.

Date of Decision: 07.11.2023

DEEPA AND ANR. VS HARISH RAILWANI           

Latest Legal News