
Interim Maintenance Cannot Be Given Without Adultery Check: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court ruled that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can only be granted after investigating adultery claims made by the husband.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can only be granted after investigating adultery claims made by the husband.
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 Karnataka High Court ruled that a stay-at-home mother’s childcare duties are a full-time job and increased her maintenance from ₹18,000 to ₹36,000. The court rejected the husband’s claim that she was idle and emphasized financial responsibility.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a wife living in her husband’s home is still entitled to maintenance. The court upheld an order directing the husband to pay interim support to his wife and child.
The Madras High Court overturned a family court order that required a wife to pay maintenance to her husband, ruling that he was capable of earning a livelihood.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a wife’s love for another man does not amount to adultery unless there is a physical relationship. The court rejected a husband’s plea to deny maintenance, stating that financial support cannot be denied based on emotional attachment.
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 Allahabad High Court ruled that ₹2,500 monthly maintenance is too low for a middle-class woman to meet basic needs. The court increased the amount to ensure fair support.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a husband cannot escape his responsibility to pay ₹5,000 in interim maintenance, even if his wife filed the application 36 years after their separation. The court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the husband’s financial ability to support his wife.
The Delhi court ruled that an unemployed husband is still responsible for paying maintenance to his wife, stating that losing a job doesn’t absolve him of his financial duties or the ability to find new employment.