The Supreme Court held that a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 CrPC, even if her first marriage was not legally ended, as long as the second husband was aware of the previous marriage.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that ₹2,500 a month is not enough for a middle-class woman to survive and enhanced the maintenance amount for Shilpi Sharma, criticizing the husband’s attempts to hide his true income.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife’s education and professional training do not automatically mean she earns enough to support herself. The court increased her maintenance allowance to ₹10,000 per month.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared that a wife’s education cannot be grounds to deny her maintenance. Justice Bhardwaj emphasized the law’s purpose to prevent destitution and upheld the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
The Delhi High Court ruled that occasional acts of adultery by a wife do not disqualify her from receiving maintenance, reaffirming the protective nature of India’s maintenance laws.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the term “wife” should be broadly interpreted to ensure maintenance is provided, even in cases of invalid marriages. Cohabitation with marriage rituals is enough to claim maintenance.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 125 CrPC is not intended to create dependent individuals waiting for maintenance from their spouse. The court reduced the maintenance awarded to the wife, considering her ability to earn an income.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a man must pay maintenance to his estranged wife despite financial struggles, reaffirming that financial hardship does not exempt him from his legal obligation under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a wife can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even after receiving alimony, if she is unable to support herself or her children. The court upheld a monthly maintenance award of Rs. 15,000.
