-
by Admin
16 February 2026 4:21 AM
A husband has a duty to assist his lawfully married wife and children financially, and he cannot avoid this commitment, according to a recent Gujarat High Court ruling.
In addition, according to Justice Samir J. Dave, a man has a social and legal obligation to maintain the same standard of life for his wife and children as they had prior to their separation.
A husband has a duty to assist his lawfully married wife and children financially, and he cannot avoid this commitment, according to a recent Gujarat High Court ruling.
In addition, according to Justice Samir J. Dave, a man has a social and legal obligation to maintain the same standard of life for his wife and children as they had prior to their separation.
However, the Family Court ordered the petitioner to provide Rs. 10,000 per month for the wife's support and Rs. 5,000 per month for the daughter.
The applicant moved the High Court in protest over this.
The applicant was to receive fast relief under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Single Judge recalled after analysing the case's facts.
"Two requirements must be met for a request to be granted under Section 125 CrPC: (1) the husband must have sufficient resources; and (2) he must "fail" to provide for his dependent wife. In this situation, the Magistrate may order the husband to give the wife whatever monthly payment is deemed appropriate. Based on other pertinent considerations and the husband's financial capability, maintenance is granted."
In this instance, the husband was discovered to be making Rs. 5,000,000. In light of the required expenditures and ongoing inflation, it was on this basis that the Family Court had given support to his wife and daughter.
According to Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors [(2021) 2 SCC 324", the support sum must be reasonable and realistic; it cannot be so high as to be oppressive and difficult for the respondent, nor should it be so low as to leave the wife in need.
In this case, the High Court concluded that the Family Court correctly granted the support amount after taking the husband's income into account.
The petitioner was subsequently given instructions to pay the support arrears as determined by the Family Court. Therefore, the revision petition was denied.
In the case, APP RC Kodekar represented the State, while attorneys Pratik Y. Jasani and Urvesh M. Prajapati represented the applicants.
Shripal Raja Rajendrakumar Shah
vs
State of Gujarat & Ors
[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/crpc-125-451844.pdf"]
