Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

Latest Legal News