Mumbai Court Denies Dentist Wife ₹1 Lakh Maintenance, Grants ₹20,000 for Children
A Mumbai court recently rejected a woman’s plea for interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month from her husband. The court ruled that the woman, being a qualified dentist, is capable of finding a job in a city like Mumbai.
Court’s Observation
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SP Kekan stated, “The applicant is a doctor residing in a metropolitan city. As a dentist, she can easily find employment in Mumbai. A qualified applicant is not entitled to maintenance from her husband in this case.”
However, the court granted ₹20,000 per month for the maintenance of the couple’s two children.
Case Background
The couple married in 2015 in Ajmer, Rajasthan, and decided to separate in 2018 when the wife was pregnant with their second child.
According to the husband, the wife left their matrimonial home for her second delivery and refused to return despite his efforts. He claimed she wanted him to relocate to Mumbai, which he found unacceptable. This led him to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Ajmer.
In response, the wife filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, alleging verbal and physical abuse by her husband and his mother. The husband and his mother denied these allegations, accusing the wife of negligence and refusing cohabitation.
Court’s Verdict
The court observed that the wife showed no effort to resume cohabitation and insisted on living in Mumbai instead of her matrimonial home in Ajmer.
The court stated, “The applicant resides with her parents, which she has a right to do under the law. However, her insistence on living in Mumbai and her lack of effort for reconciliation work against her.”
Children’s Maintenance Granted
The court noted that the husband comes from a well-to-do family and that his late father had been a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) twice. Considering the children’s welfare, the court ordered the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month for their maintenance.
Conclusion
This case highlights the balance courts maintain between an individual’s financial independence and the responsibility of providing for children. While the wife’s plea for personal maintenance was denied, the court ensured fair support for the children’s upbringing.
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==
