Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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