Man Must Pay Maintenance to Estranged Wife Even If He Faces Financial Struggles: Bombay High Court
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has made it clear that a man cannot avoid paying maintenance to his estranged wife and children, even if he is experiencing financial difficulties. The Court stressed that the responsibility of providing for a wife who cannot support herself is both a legal and moral obligation.
The ruling came after a man challenged a family court’s decision that required him to pay monthly maintenance. The man argued that he had made efforts to reunite with his wife and children, and therefore, he should not be made to pay maintenance, especially given his business debts of ₹15 lakh.
However, Justice Dangre dismissed the man’s claims and said,
“Even if he is under financial distress, he cannot escape his duty to support his wife and children. Simply saying he wants to live with them is not enough.”
The case began when the wife, along with her two minor children, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in Bhandara family court, seeking ₹39,000 per month. She claimed ₹20,000 for herself and ₹7,000 for each child, stating that she was unable to provide for herself after her husband left. She alleged that the husband runs an automobile business and earns ₹1 lakh per month.
On August 1, 2023, the family court ruled in her favour, granting ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 each for the children. The husband was also asked to pay for the children’s education and clear the pending dues within six months.
Unhappy with the ruling, the husband approached the High Court through his lawyer, Rajnish Vyas, opposing the ₹8,000 maintenance for his wife. He claimed the wife left him without any valid reason and refused to return despite his efforts.
However, the High Court found that the woman had been subjected to mental and physical harassment during their time together. The Court also noted that Section 125(4) CrPC denies maintenance only if the wife is in adultery, refuses to live with the husband without a valid reason, or if both are living separately by mutual consent. None of these conditions were proven by the husband.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the family court’s decision.
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==
