The Gujarat High Court ruled that in maintenance cases, courts often need to estimate a husband’s income, especially if he works in the unorganized sector, as true earnings are rarely disclosed in legal proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a woman in a long-term live-in relationship has the right to maintenance after separation, even without legal marriage, reinforcing financial support rights under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a woman must pay ₹10,000 monthly maintenance to her ex-husband, who is unable to work due to health issues. The court clarified that under the Hindu Marriage Act, both spouses have equal rights to financial support.
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 Karnataka High Court ruled that alimony is meant to provide financial stability to a dependent spouse, not to penalize the other spouse. The court upheld a maintenance order, emphasizing the husband’s financial responsibility.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a husband must financially support his wife, even if he is a professional beggar. The court emphasized that it is both a moral and legal responsibility.
The Indore Sessions Court ruled that a wife has the right to live according to her husband’s status, ordering the husband to pay Rs 25 lakh in lump sum and Rs 15,000 monthly for maintenance.
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 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 Calcutta High Court has ruled that denying financial support to a wife and her minor son amounts to domestic violence under the DV Act, 2005, even if the husband and wife live separately. This decision underscores the significance of economic support in safeguarding the rights of women and children.
