Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » 498A/ Domestic Violence » Bombay High Court: Man Must Pay Maintenance Despite Financial Hardship

Bombay High Court: Man Must Pay Maintenance Despite Financial Hardship

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a man must continue to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, even if he is facing financial difficulties. The court emphasized that financial distress does not exempt him from his legal responsibility to provide for his wife and children.

The court noted that although the man claimed to be in debt, having borrowed Rs. 15 lakh for his business, he is still required to support his wife and children. The judge highlighted that this responsibility is both moral and legal, especially since the wife is unable to maintain herself.

The husband had argued that he was willing to cohabit with his wife and children, but the court dismissed this as insufficient grounds to avoid paying maintenance. Simply expressing a willingness to live together does not absolve him from his financial obligations.

The wife, along with her two minor children, had approached the Bhandara Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking Rs. 39,000 per month in maintenance. She claimed that she was unable to support herself and her children after the separation and requested Rs. 7,000 per child and Rs. 20,000 for herself. She also pointed out that her husband, who runs an automobile business, earns about Rs. 1 lakh per month.

The Family Court, after considering both sides, awarded Rs. 5,000 per month for each child and Rs. 8,000 per month for the wife. The husband was also instructed to pay for the children’s education and clear any arrears within six months.

Challenging this ruling, the husband argued in the High Court that the Rs. 8,000 monthly maintenance for his wife was unjustified, claiming that he had tried to reconcile with her, but she had refused to return without any valid reason. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal, stating that there was evidence of mental and physical abuse during their time together. The court found no valid reason under Section 125(4) of the CrPC that would exempt the husband from paying maintenance.

Case Title: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200071 OF 2016

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *