Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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           

Similar News