Court Denies Maintenance to Woman Earning More Than Her Husband
In a rare legal decision, a Mumbai court refused to grant maintenance to a 36-year-old woman after discovering that she earned more than her estranged husband. The decision was upheld by the sessions court, which found no basis for her claim.
Court’s Observation on Maintenance
The court stated that earning wives can receive maintenance, but other factors must be considered. In this case, since the woman had a higher income, she was not entitled to financial support from her husband.
Judge C.V. Patil ruled:
“An earning wife is entitled to maintenance under certain conditions, but in this case, considering the income of both parties, the magistrate’s decision is legal and justified.”
Background of the Case
The woman filed a domestic violence case against her husband and in-laws in 2021. She alleged that after their child’s birth, she was forced to leave their home in Dadar.
While denying maintenance for the woman, the court ordered the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month for child support. However, the husband denied paternity, citing sexual dysfunction.
Court’s Verdict on Paternity Dispute
The woman argued that she conceived while cohabiting with her husband, who was undergoing treatment for sexual dysfunction. However, after learning about her pregnancy, her husband and in-laws started questioning her character.
The judge referred to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which assumes a child is legitimate if the couple lived together during conception.
“The husband and wife were residing together when the child was conceived. There is no evidence that the husband had no access to the wife. Therefore, the child is presumed to be legitimate under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”
Appeals by Both Parties
Following the magistrate court’s decision in November 2022, both the husband and wife appealed to the sessions court.
- The wife sought maintenance for herself and higher child support.
- The husband denied paternity of the child.
The sessions court upheld the magistrate’s order, confirming that the woman was not entitled to maintenance but affirming the husband’s responsibility to pay child support.
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==
