Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court

Voluntary Loan Repayments Do Not Reduce Maintenance Obligation: MP High Court Clarifies in Maintenance Dispute

12 September 2024 6:57 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


On September 9, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court increased the maintenance awarded to Smt. Monika from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,500 per month, ruling that the respondent's voluntary loan deductions could not reduce his legal obligation to support his wife. The court noted that the cost of living and inflation required a realistic assessment of maintenance, ensuring the applicant could live with reasonable comfort.

Smt. Monika, the applicant, had initially filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband, Praveen. The trial court awarded her Rs. 5,000 per month. Monika appealed the decision, claiming the amount was insufficient given her husband's salary of Rs. 38,373. Praveen argued that he was already paying Rs. 7,500 per month under the Domestic Violence Act and had additional obligations, including a loan installment of Rs. 13,700 for constructing a house and supporting his parents.

The key issue was whether Praveen's voluntary loan repayments could be considered when determining his ability to provide adequate maintenance. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the maintenance amount should be increased, taking into account the rising cost of living and Monika's needs.

The court rejected Praveen’s argument that his loan repayments should be deducted from his salary when calculating maintenance. The court observed that the loan was taken voluntarily and after the separation, possibly with the intent of reducing his net income. As such, the loan repayments could not reduce his obligation to provide support to his wife.

The court, referring to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), emphasized that maintenance should be realistic and sufficient for the dependent spouse to maintain a standard of living similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. It noted that Rs. 7,500 per month, considering inflation and the cost of daily necessities, was a more reasonable amount.

The court ordered that the enhanced maintenance of Rs. 7,500 would be subject to adjustment with the Rs. 7,500 already awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, meaning Monika would not receive additional payments beyond this amount.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court increased the maintenance amount to Rs. 7,500 per month, ensuring that Smt. Monika would receive a reasonable sum for her living expenses. The court dismissed Praveen's claim that loan repayments could reduce his maintenance obligations, underscoring that the right to maintenance is independent of voluntary financial commitments.

 

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

 Smt. Monika vs. Praveen

Similar News