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.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that fathers cannot deny maintenance to their daughters based on glamorous social media pictures. The court emphasized that such images are not reliable proof of financial independence and ordered the father to continue paying support.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a man’s financial support for his divorced sister should be considered when determining maintenance amounts. This decision highlights the importance of family obligations and the unique circumstances of each case.
The Supreme Court declared that an able-bodied husband must earn legitimately to support his wife and minor child. This ruling reinforces the husband’s duty to provide financial support and prevent destitution.
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that the primary objective of alimony is to ensure the dependent spouse’s financial stability and not to punish the other spouse. The court dismissed a petition challenging a maintenance order.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a healthy and able-bodied husband must legally support his wife, dismissing excuses of financial incapability as baseless under Section 125 CrPC.
