The Supreme Court denied maintenance to a working wife with a sufficient salary while awarding ₹30,00,000 for child maintenance in the divorce case between Kusum Bhatia and Sagar Sethi.
The Delhi High Court condemned husbands who force their wives to file execution petitions to delay maintenance payments. Justice Asha Menon termed the petitioner’s actions as shameful and upheld the family court’s order.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that denying financial support to a wife and minor son is a form of domestic violence under the DV Act, regardless of shared residence.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a father cannot refuse to pay maintenance for his child, even if the child lives with maternal grandparents. The court emphasized the father’s ongoing responsibility despite his financial situation.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a husband is obligated to provide financial support for his wife and child after she quit her job at his request. The court emphasized that paying school fees does not absolve the husband from his duty to maintain both his wife and child.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a man must either pay maintenance for his children or undergo a DNA test to prove his claim of not being their father. The court stressed the importance of children’s rights in paternity cases.
The Bombay High Court has ordered a working woman to pay ₹10,000 in monthly maintenance to her unemployed, ill ex-husband. The court emphasized that both men and women are equally responsible for providing support under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot sit idle and claim full maintenance from her estranged husband. She is only entitled to supportive maintenance while making efforts to sustain herself. The court upheld the reduced maintenance awarded by the appellate court.
A court refused to grant maintenance to a 36-year-old woman earning more than her estranged husband. However, the court ordered the husband to pay child maintenance, despite his denial of paternity.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 377 IPC after the husband paid ₹74 lakhs to settle all disputes with his wife. The court highlighted the importance of letting both parties move forward with their lives.
